\ 

W' 

"Ä'ri 

^m. 

:«Ei'i 

mi 

m 

ORBIS  PICTUS/THE  UNIVERSAL  LIBRARY  OF  ART 
EDITED     BY     PAUL     WESTHEIM 


VOL.  VIII 

THE  .HISTORY  OF 
ANCIENT  MEXICAN  ART 

AN  ESSAY  IN  OUTLINE 

BY 

WALTER  LEHMANN,  M.  D.,  PH.D.,  ETC. 

DIRECTOR   OF   THE   ETHNOLOGICAL   INSTITUTE  OF 
THE  BERLIN  ETHNOGRAPHICAL  MUSEUM 


19    2     2 
NEW-YORK   BRENTANO'S   PUBLISHERS 


PRINTED  BY  SPAMER,  LEIPSIC 


F 
ISZalB. 


TO 
MY  PARENTS'IN-LAW 


Introduction. 

It  is  incumbent  on  the  history  of  art  to  work  upon  fixed  basic  principles 
applicable    to    the    manifestations    of    many    peoples. 

Culture  is  creative.  Civilization  is  exhausted.  The  former  is  productive.  The 
latter  paramountly  reproductive.  Thus  civilization  tends  both  to  syncretism  and 
archaism. 

The  creative  part  of  culture  is  inherent  in  that  which  is  artistic.  The  essence 
of  art  raises  both  the  question  of  generalities  and  particularities.  All  art  should 
be  judged,  examined  and  comprehended  simultaneously  from  the  point  of  view  of 
humanity,  as  well  as  of  a  people  and  its  representative,  the  creative  artist. 

No  matter  the  art  of  which  people  be  examined,  it  will  always  be  found 
on  closer  investigation  of  phenomena,  either  similar  or  dissimilar,  that  the  path 
leads  to  something  common  and  superior  to  both:  the  enigma  of  art  manifestation 
per  se. 

The  final  approach  must  be  the  task  of  philosophy  beyond  historical  and 
ethnographical   investigation.   The  enigma   is   rooted  in  the   soul. 

Indeed,  every  form  of  art  is  the  expression  of  either  the  individual  soul, 
or  that  of  a  generality.  And  here  we  discover  a  very  peculiar  reciprocity  between 
both.  The  individual  artist  is  able  to  move  the  masses.  On  the  other  hand  the 
indistinct  sentient  life  of  a  nation  crystalizes  in  the  artist.  Though  It  is  not 
necessary  that  his  name  be  handed  down  to  posterity.  Nor  is  this  the  case  with 
folk-songs  for  instance.  Personal  art  is  always  imbued  with  the  Impersonal. 
For  the  genius  of  the  artist  and  that  of  a  people,  if  united,  always  finds  its 
ultimate  human  expression  In  creations  which,  as  something  etemeJ,  outlasts  the 
mutation   of   time. 

What  Is  eternal?  —  The  Ideas  which  are  the  foundation  of  all  universal 
phenomena,   and   therefore  evolve  the   form  problems  of   art. 

Art  Is  the  power  to  embody  ideas  In  a  creative  form,  and  to  erect  something 
permanent,  though  perishable  In  Its  exterior  In  the  ever-flowing  course  of  time. 

A  general  view  of  man's  multifarious  art  expression  shows.  In  spite  of  all 
the  peculiarities  of  peoples,  that  there  are  certain  characteristics  which  permit 
us  to  speak  of  art  styles,  and  great  periods  In  the  history  of  art.  It  Is  perhaps  a 
moot  question  as  to  how  far  it  Is  permissible  to  speak  here  of  a  history  of 
development,  although  an  Irrefutable  sequence  Is  recognizable,  showing  an  historical 
course  In  a  given  movement  which  we  term  time. 


The  History  of  Ancient  Mexican  Art. 


A  succession  of  styles  is  observable,  both  with  the  individual  artist,  peoples,  and 
groups   of   peoples. 

It  is  important  to  remark,  that  pure  and  applied  art,  now  travelling  different 
roads  throughout  nearly  the  whole  of  Europe,  are,  with  other  peoples,  more  or 
less  distinctly  connected. 

High  art  in  the  European  sense  of  the  word  is  the  expression  of  the  spiritual 
experience  of  the  individual  in  which  the  work  of  art  is  both  created  and  enjoyed 
for  its  own  sake.  Applied  art  is  in  the  same  sense  of  the  word  pronouncedly 
utilitarian.  In  both  cases  the  aim  is  that  of  the  embodiment  of  ideas.  For  the 
Greek  "Charioteer",  as  well  as  an  axe,  cu^  both,  in  their  way,  embodied  ideas. 

Style  is,  so  to  say,  the  handwriting  of  a  cultured  epoch  in  which  recognizable 
or  unrecognizable  individuals  produce  works  of  art.  Personal  style  is  the  master  9 
handwriting. 

The  transference  of  art  subjects  to  handicrafts  is  nearly  always  styleless, 
and  a  particular  evil  of  our  new  age  of  machinery,  which,  by  its  highly  developed 
technical  ability  facilitates  any  reproduction  and  nonsensical  transference  to  the  most 
varied    material. 

Style  is  the  peculiar  form  of  a  work  of  art.  On  the  other  hand,  con\'entionalizing 
of  forms  is  the  intentional  or  unintentional  artistic  changing  of  nature's  forms 
and   expressions. 

All  art  is  in  so  far  impressionistic  as  it  has  its  origin  in  exterior  impressions; 
no  one  can  evade  these.  The  work  of  art  thus  created  is  a  connecting-link  inserted 
in   an  uninterrupted   sequence  between  the  external  world  and   man. 

Expressionism  however  —  whether  naive  or  designing  —  holds  that  it 
can  create  straight  from  the  soul  a  work  of  art  devested  of  any  intervening 
medium  by  disregarding  all  possible  exterior  impressions.  Such  a  production  finally 
appears  to  be  in  no  connection  whatsoever  with  the  palpable  world.  Pure 
expressionism  might  be  regarded  as  the  art  of  metaphysics.  As  absolute 
space  is  dealt  \rith  by  metaphysics,  such  a  phenomenon,  as  for  instance  cubism, 
becomes  psychologically  comprehensible.  And,  as  further,  absolute  space  forms  a 
synchronic  continuity,  we  can  also  approach  nearer  to  the  intention  of  modern  artists 
who  attempt  to  represent  a  sequence  of  events  confined  in  space,  as  may  be  sometimes 
observed  in  the  case  of  the  simple  mediaevel  legend  painters.  As  however  the  works 
of  high  creative  art,  plastic  and  graphic,  are  really  not  time-bound  in  only  retaining 
one  moment,  the  amalgamation  of  time  and  space  in  plastic  and  graphic  art  in 
one  and  the  same  work  is  a  characteristic  of  the  primitive,  or  a  voluntary 
harking  back  to  the  same. 

I  understand  by  impressionism  a  preponderating  influence  in  the  artist's  work 
from  without,  and  by  expressionism  that  from  within. 


The  History  of  Ancient  Mexican  Art. 


The  fundamental  form  of  impressionism  is  naturalism,  for  nature  was,  and 
remains,  the  eternal  teacher  of  mankind.  Small  wonder  then  that  just  the  most 
primitive  drawings,  as  for  instance  the  ancient  Altamira  cave  paintings,  are  possessed 
of  an  extraordinary  vividness  of  impression.  They  are  pictures  of  nature  based 
upon  the  most  acute  power  of  observation  emanatmg  from  the  close  connection  of 
primitive  man  with   nature. 

The  naive  grasping  of  the  essential  in  vivid  momentar>'  movements  (closely - 
akin  to  caricature)  is  characteristic.  It  is  clear  that  we  have  here,  as  is  the 
case  with  bushmen's  and  other  drawings,  a  certain  psychic  mood  and  form  of 
human  thought  reacting  to  momentary  phenomena  in  nature  with  complete  psychic 
devotion.  I  term,  the  art  of  this  attitude  to  the  universe  (W eltanscliauung)  primary 
naturalism.  Sharply  contrasted  to  this  are  the  restricted  and  limited  patterns 
enforced  by  the  technique  of  plaiting  and  weavmg  at  a  period  when  man  was  possessed 
of  a  developed  handicraft.  As,  ethnologically,  the  pot  developed  from  the  basket, 
woven  patterns  were  transferred  to  ceramic,  and  were  thus  changed  in  variouls 
v^^manners.    I  call  this  style  primary  plectogene  geometrical. 

Since  the  introduction  of  plaiting,  weaving,  and  pottery,  both  styles  begin 
to  influence  each  other,  and  in  doing  so,  it  is  probable  that  originally  different 
and  distinct  cultural  spheres  reacted  mutually  on  one  another  through  amalgamation, 
trade  relations,  migration  and  other  causes. 

It  is  possible,  for  instance,   in  the  case  of  ancient   Peruvian   art  to   distinctly  *  = 
recognize    the    two    above-mentioned    styles,    as    well    as    their    mutual    exchange    of 
influence. 

Plectogene  geometrical  patterns  undergo  a  secondary  naturalistic  change  on 
adoption,  as  human  imagination  easily  conceives  e.  g.  a  square  having  another  little  one 
within  it,  to  be  an  eye.  This  secondary  plectogene  style  is  geometncal- 
naturalistic. 

On  the  other  hzmd,  naturalistic  motives  are  conventionalized  owing  to  a 
i^  more  reflective  and  more  recent  observation  of  nature.  This  is  a  form  of  observing 
nature,  as  conceived  and  reproduced  by  means  of  memory,  rather  than  an  observation 
of  what  appears  actually  and  at  first  hand.  Associative  modifications  of  the 
pattern  result.  And  finally,  that  mode  of  viewing  the  universe,  which  is  pondered 
and  mythological,  creates  an  art  more  or  less  richly  vested  with  symbols  and  — 
^attributes  (mostly  of  the  gods).  This  conventionalized  naturalism  as  met  with, 
for  instance,  in  ancient  Mexico,  may  be  designated  as  a  priestly  or  hierarchical  art.  *- 

If  the  secondary  naturalistic  plectogene  patterns  are  tranferred  to  ceramic,  the 
rigid  form  becomes  less  rigid,  and  naturalistic  geometncal  productions  result. 

Again,  another  form  of  naturalism  developing  to  a  conscious  return  to  the 
nature  of  primitive  man,  is  the  mature  and  supermature  naturalism  of  the  most 
cultured  peoples.  It  alone  really  knows  the  emotional  landscapes  and  the  spiritualized 


The  History  of  Ancient  Mexican  Art. 


portrait.    It  is  rational  (one  in  many)  in  its  classical  or  classicizing  form,  irrational 
in  its  romantic  form  (many  in  one). 

The   exhaustion    of    impressionism   leads    to    expressionism,    which,    in    a    way, 
is  suppressed  naturalism,   and   may  perhaps  pave  the  way  for  a   new  romanticism. 


Mexico. 

It  is  only  possible  within  the  disposable  space  to  attempt  an  essay  in  outline 
of  the  historj'  of  Mexican  art  in  view  of  the  difficult  archaeological  conditions  in 
this  extensive  country,  and  because  of  the  very  complicated  historical  statements  made 
in  old  sources  which  are  hardly  yet  even  sifted.  In  order  to  obtain  a  more  or  less 
comprehensive  survey  of  the  various  styles  and  time-epochs  on  Mexican  soil,  it  is 
necessar}'  to  unroll  the  variegated  scroll  of  the  many  peoples,  among  whom  the 
Mexican-speaking  inhabitants  of  the  plateau,  and  the  Maya  tribes  have  left  important 
historical  traditions  and  monuments. 

We  shall  not  go  amiss  in  presuming  that  the  differentiation  from  Mexican 
style  amongst  the  neighbouring  peoples  is  based  on  special  peculiarities  which 
they  were  originally  possessed  of.  In  doing  so  we  must  further  consider  that  the 
'Mexicans  themselves  have  passed  through  various  style-periods  during  which  they 
influenced  the  peoples  surrounding  them. 

It  seems  more  stimulating  in  deahng  with  this  obscure  field  of  art  to  offer  a 
comprehensive  view  of  the  peoples  in  question,  as  well  as  of  their  history,  rather 
than  a  detailed  appreciation  of  the  artistic  value  of  each  picture  reproduced 
m  this  little  volume;  pictures  of  works  of  art.  be  it  said,  that  were  rigidly 
selected,  and  which  certainly  speak  very  distinctly  for  themselves.  Questions  of 
style  dealt  with  from  the  view-point  of  the  history  of  art  are  now  for  the  first 
time  chronologically  arranged  in  the  appended  table.  The  writer  trusts  that  this 
volume,  together  with  its  bibliography,  may  facilitate  an  introduction  into  ancient 
American    art. 


General  View. 

L  Non^Mexicans, 

The  ancient  inhabitants  of  Mexico  are  divided  into  two  main  groups:  Mexicans 
and  Non-Mexicans.  The  former  can  be  arranged  in  two  strata  which  are  linguisti- 
cally, archaeologically,  ethnographically,  and  chronologically  quite  distinct  from  one 
another. 


The  History  of  Ancient  Mexican  Art. 


The  Toltecs  or  Nahuas  (Chichimeca  Mochanecatoca  in  Sahagun's  Hist,  de 
la  Cosas  de  la  Nueva  Espana)  form  the  older  stratum  of  the  Mexicans  with 
dialects  distinguished  by  the  T  sound  in  place  of  the  Tl.  Their  language  was,  or 
is  Nahuat.  The  latter  stratum  is  formed  by  the  Nahuatlacs,  to  whom  the  Aztecs 
belong.    They  have  the  mute  Tl    sound,  and  speak  Nahuatl. 

The  Sonoras  and  the  Shoshonees  are  elder  relations  of  both.  As  the  Mexicans 
of  both  strata  immigrated  to  the  Mexican  highlands,  we  shall  first  deal  with  the 
Non-Mexican  peoples.  They  either  also  immigrated  in  archaic  times,  or  are  there 
so  long  that  they  may  be  regarded  as  autochthonous.  To  these  belong  chiefly 
the  peoples  of  the  great  Otomi  group,  further  the  Mixteco-Tzapotecs,  Mixe- 
Zoques,  Huaves  and  Mayas,  as  well  as  the  Totonacs  and  Tarascs  (whose  linguistic 
position  remains  undecided),  although  these  two  latter  are  also  sometimes  mentioned 
in  the  migration  myths  as  "arrivals". 

Of  the  northern  frontier  tribes  mention  should  be  made  of  the  representatives 
of  the  great  families  of  Athabascans  or  Tinne  stretching  far  to  the  south.  The 
chief  body  of  these  tribes  is  settled  in  the  north-west  of  the  continent.  The  best- 
known  of  the  southernmost  Athabascans  are  the  Apachees  between  the  Rio  Grande 
del  Norte  and  the  Upper  Rio  Gila.  In  the  remote  west  —  in  the  south-west  of 
the  United  States  on  the  Lower  Colorado,  on  the  Rio  Gila,  and  in  the  neigh- 
bouring territories  —  we  find  the  Yumas  as  a  particular  stock,  including  the 
Mohaves,  Cocopas,  Cochimis  (of  Lower  Cahfornia)  besides  the  Sen  on  the 
Tiburon  island  and  enclaved  on  part  of  the  opposite  Mexican  mainland  (in  the  Pima 
district).  This  neglected  group  is  particularly  important  owing  to  its  relationship  on 
the  one  hand  with  the  Chontals  of  Oaxaca  in  the  south,  and  on  the  other 
with  the  Californian  Hokan  group  in  the  north.  Perhaps  we  may  regard  the 
Californian  elements  in  Mexico  as  very  ancient.  It  is  not  possible  to  discern 
clearly  now-a-days  whether  in  remote  antiquity  Californians  once  held  a  major 
part  of  Mexico,  or  whether  only  single  shoots  had  penetrated  into  a  still  older 
original  population  (the  Otoml  group).  But,  at  any  rate  it  is  remarkable  that 
the  residue  of  the  Seris,  Cuitlatecs,  Tlappanec-Subtiabas  (Maribios),  Chontals  of 
Oaxaca,  Xincas  (south-east  Guatemala),  who  appear  as  Californians,  cling  very 
closely  to  the  Pacific  coast  following  the  direction  of  California  to  the  south. 

Among  the  tribes  of  northern  Mexico,  attention  should  be  drawn  to  the 
Sonoras  and  Chichemecas.  They  will  be  discussed  when  dealing  with  the  Mexicans, 
as  well  as  the  Shoshonees,  as  all  three  belong  to  one  large  group. 

There  are  still  to-day  numbers  of  long-settled  peoples  in  central  Mexico.  The 
most  important  arc  the  Otomisof  the  southern  Mesa  Central  and  the  neighbouring 
countries  of  the  Tierra  caliente.  They  include  the  Otomis -proper,  Mazahuas  and 
Matlatzincas  or  Toloques  (Pirindas  in  Tarascan)  south  of  them  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood  of   the  high   valley   of   Toluca.   as   well   as    the   Ocuiltecas    (MaHnalcas;). 


10  The   History  of  Ancient   Mexican   Art. 


Mexicans    found    their    way    in    various    migratory    waves    into    the    ranks    of   these 
Otomi  p>eoples. 

Adjoining  these  autochthonous  peoples,  as  primordial  relations,  are  the  Chocho- 
Popolocas  now  only  existing  as  a  fragment  of  a  people  south  of  Puebla,  and  in 
northern  Oaxaca.  Once  they  were  very  extensive  and  coincide,  according  to  my  last 
investigations,  mainly  with  the  ancient  Olmecs  (Olmeca-Uixtotin).  They  were 
the  inhabitants  of  the  fertile  tropical  coastal  countries  of  the  Gulf  shore  south 
of  Verra  Cruz.  Sahagun,  who  collected  old  Mexican  traditions  up  to  his  old 
age  from  the  most  learned  Indians,  emphasizes  the  fact  that  the  Olmecs  were  - 
not  Chichimecas,  but  Olmeca-Uixtotin-NonouaJcas.  This  means  that  they  did  not 
immigrate  from  the  north,  but  were  long-settled  barbarians,  speaking  originally  a 
foreign  language,  and  being  a  foreign  race,  even  though  later  Toltecicized.  They 
were  already  influenced  at  an  early  period  by  Toltec  culture  and  language.  And 
it  was  just  their  district  —  the  inner  angle  of  the  Gulf  —  that  also  remained  a  centre 
of  especially  high  intellectual  culture  till  well  into  Aztec  times,  as  is  above  all 
proven  by  the  magnificent  Codex  Borgia  originating  frQim  this  district.  The  extensive 
Toltec  influence  among  this  "rich"  border  people  is  partially  explained  by  the 
trade  route  passing  through  their  territory  leading  from  the  central  plateau  to  Tabasco 
and  the  Maya  countries.  Hence  these  Olmec  tribes  were  considered  in  a  later  era 
<^from  ihc  Aztec  point  of  view)  as  being  the  children  of  Quetzalcouatl  (the  God 
of  the  Toltecs  and  the  travelling  merchants). 

Olmecs  were  settled  in  ancient  times  in  Tlaxcala,  where  later  they  had,  as 
Pinome,  a  quarter  of  the  town  to  themselves.  It  is  apparent  that  the  early  Toltecicized 
Olmecs  had  also  possessed  themselves  of  the  political  hegemony  in  Cholula  the 
Rome  of  the  New  World.  We  may  presume  that  the  Toltecs  were  exercised  of  <-' 
the  intellectual  supremacy  at  all  times,  or  at  least  passed  it  on  to  their  successors. 
Bishop  Lorenzana  gives  us  tidings  of  the  Toltec  language  which  had  been  adopted, 
and  which  was  a  Nahuat  idiom.  He  calls  the  dialect  of  the  Puebla  district  uncom- 
►-promisingly  "Olmeco-Mexicano".  We  have  an  historical  foundation  for  the  whole 
of  ancient  American  history  in  the  Aztec  text  of  the  Historia  Tolteca  Chichimeca^) 
deposited  in  the  National  Library  in  Paris. 

The  expulsion  of  the  Toltecicized  Olmecs  from  Cholula  was  effected  with  the 

help   of   the   wariike   Nahuatlacs   in    1168  A.D.    As   we   read   in   Torquemada   that 

*-^the  sovereignty  of  the  Olmecs  lasted  500  years,  we  arrive  at  the  date  of  600  A.  D. 

for   the   commencement   of  the   Olmec   Tyranny,   that   is   to   say:    exactly   the   time 

in  which,  according  to  Sahagun,  the  Empire  of  Tollan  declined. 


')  The  Ms  is  bilingual  on  the  ist  page,  Aztec  and  Chocho,  as  I  have  been  able  to  prove. 
This  circumstance  may  also  serve  as  another  proof  that  the  language  of  the  Olmeca-Uixtotin  was 
a   Chocho  dialect. 


The  History  of  Ancient  Mexican  Art.  11 

The  Olmec  question  is  therefore  of  the  greatest  importance  for  the  early 
history  of  the  Toltecs.  We  are  further  aware  from  Oviedo  and  Torquemada  that 
it  was  the  Olmecs  who  had  caused  the  emigration  of  Nahuat-speaidng  Nicaraos 
from  the  surroundings  of  Cholula  to  Nicaragua  {circa  1000 A.D.).  Chorotega- 
Mangues  had  already  arrived  in  Nicaragua  before  these  Nicaraos.  They  must 
have  gone  there  before  1000  A.  D.  from  the  district  of  the  Chiapanecs  of  the 
Mexican  isthmus,  for  Mangues  were  found  by  the  Nicaraos  as  "Masters"  of  the 
country.  Perhaps  forebears  of  the  Tlappanecs  had  come  with  these  Mangues  to 
Subtiaba  (near  Leon).  These  are  foundations  for  a  chronology  hitherto  wrapped 
in  darkness,  and  which  now  permit  of  an  exacter  fixation  of  the  periods  of  the 
history  of  art  in  Mexico  and  Central  America  {vide  Table). 

The  Mazatecs  are  the  nearest  relations  and  neighbours  of  the  Chocho-Popolocas. 
To  these  also  belong  the  Triques,  Ixcatecs  and  Chiapanecs. 

It  is  as  well  to  connect  here  the  peoples  of  the  Mexican  isthmus:  the  Mixteco- 
Tzapotecs  and  the  Chinantecs  who  are  connected  with  the  Othomi  group,  cilthough 
this  fact  is  not  fully  cleared  up  in  detail. 

The  rough  tribes  of  the  Mixe-Zoques  form  a  group  of  their  own  who  show 
through  the  Tapachultecan  I  connection  with  the  Xincan  II  in  the  south-east  of 
Guatemala,  perhaps  via  the  mysterious  Aguateco  II  of  Guatemala.  And  finally 
may  be  the  Huaves  of  the  Tehuantepec  lagoons  also  belong  to  this  group.  The 
linguistic  connection  of  these  fragments  of  peoples  with  the  Maya  family  are  not 
yet  investigated  enough  to  be  conclusively  judged  of.  At  any  rate,  the  original  Mayas,  ^ 
when  spreading,  had  to  deal  with  the  ancestors  of  the  Mixe-Zoques  in  the  north- 
west. These  latter  had  been  driven  out  by  the  Chiapanecs.  In  the  south  and  south- 
east the  original  Mayas  had  to  deal  with  Xinca  peoples.  The  relationship  of  the 
Mayas  with  certain  tribes  in  Honduras  discloses  new  historical  points  of  view. 

We  must  insert  here  the  Tarascs  (Quaochpanme,  "People  with  shaven  heads").— 
They  inhabit  an  extensive  country  (that  was  never  subjugated  by  the  Mexicans)  in  the 
west  of  the  high  valley  of  Toluca  on  the  Pacific  slope.    They  speak  a  very  singular 
agglutinating   language,    and   are   remarkable,   because   —   like   the   Toltecs   —   they  -  v^n^**^ 
did  not   sacrifice  human  beings.   Archaeologically  the  style  of  their  ceramic   shows  '- 
connections  with  the  primitive  Otomi  stratum. 

The  Totonacs  of  the  Gulf  coast  between  Huaxtecs  in  the  north,  and  Olmecs 
in  the  south,  were  a  people  who  had  attained  to  a  considerable  height  of  culture  *- 
of  which  their  stone  sculptury  is  an  eloquent  witness. 

i-  Linguistically  they  are  conspicuously  isolated.  Their  history  goes  back  centuries 
anterior  to   the  Spanish   conquest.   But  it  has  only   been  handed   down  in   its   main 
lines   in   a   few   statements,    chiefly   by   Torquemada.     Certainly    they    were   imbued 
at  an  early  period  with  Toltec  culture.   It  is  possible  that  for  this  reason  the  Totonacs  — 
were  considered   by  the  Aztecs  of  a  later  epigonal  period  to   be  the   builders  of 


12  The  History  of  Ancient  Mexican  Art. 


.  the  TeotiKuacan  pyramids  which  are  decidedly  Toltec.  The  magnificent  twin 
manuscripts,  the  Vienna  Codex  and  the  Codex  Zouche  Nutall  (Cod.  Jovius)  sent  by 

^Cortes  to  the  Emperor  Charles  V.  originate  from  Totonac  districts. 

The  Maya  peoples  of  the  Mexican  isthmus  and  the  neighbouring  northern 
Central  America  are  still  a  homogeneous  mass  to-day,  which  has  in  course  of  time 
extended  from  the  mountainous  country  between  Chiapas  and  Guatemala  to  the 
west,  north,  east,  and  south-east  without  having  reached  the  isthmus  of  Tehuantepec, 
nor  passing  to  any  considerable  extent  the  Bahia  de  Fonseca  in  the  south.  Only 
the  Huaxtecs,  who  must  have  separated  from  the  original  Mayas  (Chicomuceloltecs) 
in  very  early  times,  are  to  be  found  at  a  great  distance  from  the  rest  of  the  Mayas 
in  the  state  of  Vera  Cruz  from  Tuxpan  to  beyond  Tampico  where  they  are 
neighbours  of  the  Pamis  and  Otomis  in  the  hinterland.  The  Huaxtecs,  in  ill- 
repute  with  the  Aztecs,  as  being  barbaric  drunkards,  barbaric,  because  they  wore 
no  lom-cloth  (but  perhaps  a  sort  of  penis-glove),  were  possessed  of  neither  hiero- 
glyphs nor  stone  edifices :  at  best  small  modest  earth  pyramids  with  rough  awkward 
stone  human  figures  on  them,  and  sometimes  faced  with  stone  slabs.  On  the  other  hand 

-their  coloured  striped  woollen  textiles  were  celebrated,  and  drawings  of  Huaxtec 
stuffs  in  Mexican  picture-writings  give  a  weak  conception  of  their  magnificence. 
The  lack  of  hieroglyphs  with  the  Huaxtecs  proves  that  they  must  have  been  sepa- 
rated from  the  original  Mayas  at  latest  in  the  8th  century  after  Christ,  becauset 
the  oldest  known  dated  Maya  monument  —  the  Birdgod  of  San  Andres  de 
Tuxtla  —  originates  at  the  latest  from  this  period.  Accordingly,  to  all  appearances, 
they  must  have  been  separated  from  the  original  Mayas  in  much  earlier  times. 

In  order  to  understand  Maya  culture,  chiefly  distinguished  by  wonderful  archi- 

'■  tecture,   it   is   necessary   to   go   back  to  the   Mexicans. 


II.  Mexicans. 

Historical,  archaeological,  and  hnguistic  facts  show  that  it  is  possible,  if  we 
divide  the  Mexicans  into  two  main  groups,  to  satisfactorily  connect  the  variety  of 
apparently  contradictory  statements  of  the  old  sources  about  the  earliest  Mexican 
times.  These  two  groups  are  the  Nahuas  and  Nahuatlacas  mentioned  above,  and 
by  whom  I  mean  the  older  Nahuat-speaking  Toltecs,  and  younger  Nahuatl-speaking 
tribes  of  the  Aztec  type. 

It  is  a  law  that  compact  groups  of  peoples  change,  or  "develop".  On  the 
other  hand,  segregated  parts  maintain  themselves  carefully  at  that  point  at  which 
they  stood  when  leaving  the  greater  mother-nation,  being  a  minority  struggling  to 
maintain  its  peculiarities  as  an  enclave  in  a  foreign  majority.  This  applies  par- 
ticularly to  the  languages  and  dialects  in  the  diaspora;  they  are  therefore,  in  connection 


The  History  of  Ancient  Mexican  Art.  13 

with    other    investigatory    auxiliaries,    especially    adapted    to    answer    chronological 
questions  which  are  also  indispensable  for  questions  dealing  with  the  history  of  art. 

The  oldest  Nahuat  known  to  me  is  the  Izalco  of  Salvador.  It  is  partly  on  the 
same  level  as  Sonora  and  Shoshonee.  This  can  only  be  explained  by  extremely  ancient 
Toltecs  having  penetrated  as  far  as  Salvador. 

Beyond  the  real  Shoshonees,  the  following  also  belong  to  them:  the  Hopis 
(Moquis)  of  Arizona,  the  Yutes  of  Utah  and  Colorado,  the  Paiutes  of  Nevada, 
the  Chemehuevis  of  the  Rio  Colorado,  and  the  Comanches  of  Texas  and  New 
Mexico. 

The  Sonoras  include  briefly  the  Pimas,  Opatas,  Cahitas,  Tarahumaras, 
Tepehuanos,  Acaxees,  Coras  (Nayarits)  and  Huichols,  all  settled  in  north-west 
Mexico. 

We  had  best  make  mention  here  of  the  Chichimecs,  who,  according  to  Sahagun, 
are  divided  into  Tamimes  ("Archers"  in  ancient  Nahuat)  and  Teochichimecas  ("steppe 
Chichimecs"),  and  to  whom  the  Zacachichimecas  ("grassland  Chichimices")  also 
belong. 

The  namd  Chichimecs  is  a  collective  one  for  a  number  of  tribes  on  the 
plains,  and  in  the  mountain  countries  of  northern  and  north-western  Mexico.  It  is 
difficult  to  decide  as  to  their  linguistic  position.  It  is  certain  on  the  one  hand  that  a 
part  of  the  Chichimecs  belong  to  the  Otomi  group,  on  the  other  we  may  think  of  the 
Teules  Chichimecas  in  connection  with  the  Teochichimecas  and  Zacachichimecas  who 
led  their  restless  lives  between  the  southern  Sonora  and  Otomi .  The  Cazcans, 
Cocas  and  Tecuexes  may  be  placed  next  to  the  Teules  Chichimecas.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  all  these  ancient  Mexicans  who  had  migrated  into  the  country  from  the  northern 
districts  were  called  Chichimecs.  For  this  reason  Sahagun  calls  the  Olmeca-Uixtotin : 
Nonoualca   ("Speakers   of  a   foreign  language"),   and  not   Chichimeca. 

It  is  highly  important  that  in  the  district  of  Teul  (source  of  the  Rio  Bolanos) 
as  well  as  in  the  valley  of  Juchipila  and  the  side  valleys  of  the  Rio  Verde  magni- 
ficent earthenware  vessels  are  found  encrusted  with  splendid  colours  which  are 
recognizable  as  being  connected  with  the  district  of  Tepic,  La  Quemada  and 
Chalchihuites,  as  well  as  with  the  discoveries  in  the  middle  stratum  of  Teotihuacan. 
And  further  north  of  the  ruins  of  Chalchihuites  and  the  discoveries  of  Teul  and  of 
Estanzuela  (near  Tepic)  we  find  La  Quemada,  the  old  Tuitlan,  with  relics  of 
Tarascan  style  and  the  Sivano-ki.  These  "Sivano  Houses"  consist  of  numerous 
clay  buildings  in  the  Pima  district  which  are  very  reminiscent  of  the  old  buildings 
of  Casas  Grandes  in  Chihuahua  and  Arizona.  It  is  probable  that  the  ancestors 
of  the  Pimas  not  only  built  the  Casas  Grandes,  but  also  occupied  several  buildings 
of  the  Pueblos.  As  among  the  multi-lingual  tribes  of  the  Pueblos  (Kera,  Tehua, 
Zuni,  etc.)  the  Hopis  (Moquis)  of  the  first  Mesa  are  the  only  present  represen- 
tatives of  the  Shoshonees  in  the  north  of  Arizona  we  are  justified  in  presuming  there 


14  The  History  of  Ancient  Mexican  Art. 


has  been,  as  far  as  extension,  time,  language  and  archaeology  are  concerned 
an  older  Shoshonian  period  before  the  Sonoran.  P.  Perez  de  Ribera  gives  us 
information  about  the  emigration  of  the  Sonoras  from  the  north  in  his  Historia 
de  los  Triumphos  de  Nuestra  Santa  Fe  (Madrid  1645,  Kb.  I,  cap.   19). 

I  consider  the  Casas  Grandes  as  still  belonging  to  the  proto-Shoshonic  period 
which  ceases  linguistically  in  about  1000  B.C.;  the  Sivano-ki  to  the  first  proto- 
Sonoran,  the  Chalchihuites  with  Teuls,  Totoates,  La  Quemada  and  Estanzuela 
(Tepic)  to  the  old-Sonorcm  period.  Both  of  which  reach  from  1000 — 500  B.  C. 
having  intimate  connection  with  proto-Toltec  culture  of  the  1  st  cent.  B.  C.  From  this 
area  sprung  the  proto-Toltec  culture  which  depended  on  the  ancient  Toltec  culture 
flourishing  before  600  A.  D. 

The  stages  of  these  cultures  are  marked  by  rums  and  characteristic  antiquities, 
by  linguistic  studies  in  connection  with  chronological  statements  as  established 
especially  by  Sahagun,  in  the  Historia  de  los  Reynos  de  Colhuacän  y  dei  Mexico,  and 
Torquemada.  I  do  not  mean  that  all  ruins  and  discoveries  need  originate  from  such 
dates  as  1000  B.  C,  500  B.  C,  etc.  {vide  Table).  Such  dates  merely  serve  to 
outline  the  epochs  that  created  these  styles,  of  which  ruins  and  objects  also 
belonging  to  later  centuries,  are  examples  due  to  rentention  on  the  part  of  the 
inhabitants  remaining   behind,   and  their  cUnging  to  ancient  traditions. 

It  is  here  that  early  American  history  focuses.  Rays  of  light  are  always 
only  thrown  from  complete  historical  centres  back  to  distant  antiquity,  and  onwards 
to  centuries  lying  ahead.  In  America,  it  is  only  possible  to  find  fixed  points  for  the 
chronology  and  the  dates  of  excavations  important  in  the  history  of  art  where 
historical  traditions,  or  the  monuments  themselves,  have  left  reliable  dates.  This 
applies  especially  hitherto  only  to  Mexico  and  Central  America,  far  less  to  South 
America,  and  the  least  to  North  America.  Mexico  herself  was  in  possession  of  the 
most  important  auxiharies  to  historical  preservation  of  her  great  part  by  means  of  highly 
developed  picture-writing  and  hieroglyphics,  together  with  an  admirably  planned 
calender  system.  It  is  true  that  mythological  conceptions  play  an  important  role, 
as  is  the  case  with  all  peoples  whose  minds  tend  to  mythology,  and  the  corresponding 
uncritical  treatment  of  history.  Myths  are  connected  with  events,  heroes  of  cul- 
ture and  historical  personalities,  and  vest  distant  geographical  districts  with  con- 
ceptions inseparably  connected  with  the  cardinal  points.  Originally  chronology  and 
calenders  could  not  to  be  distinguished  from  cosmological  studies.  For  this  reason  the 
starting  points  (zero  points)  of  chronology  are  closely  connected  with  the  establishing 
of  eras.  This  is  particularly  the  case  to  a  great  extent  with  Mexicans  and  Mayas. 
Dim  prehistoric  periods  are  summed  up  into  epochs  synchronizing  with  a  well- 
regulated  and  rounded-off  universal  conception.  Thus  the  traditions  in  the 
Historia  de  los  Reynos  de  Colhuacän  y  de  Mexico  count  with  2028  years,  which 
are   distributed   over   4   world   eras   of    676,    312,    364    and    676   years,    and    with 


The  History  of  Ancient  Mexican  Art.  15 


2513  years  which  expired  on  22nd  May  1558  A.  D..  leaving  2513— 2028  -485  years 
of  complete  (Aztecan)  time.  The  traditions  of  this  document,  the  original  writing 
of  which  is  in  the  handwriting  of  Ixthlxochitl,  and  which  I  was  lucky  enough  to 
re-discover  in  Mexico  in  1909,  only  goes  back  in  its  first  part  to  1073  A.  D.,  a  date 
that  clearly  points  to  1064—1074,  the  2"^^  dispersal  of  the  Toltecs.  These  485  years 
only  include  a  newer  Mexican,  Nahuatlacan  tradition,  and  deal  with  the  age  of 
the  world,  creation,  and  Toltec  history  fromi  a  newer,  /.  e.  Aztec  point  of  view.  The 
starting  point  of  the  whole  calculation  would  reach  back  to  955  B.  C.  We  may 
perhaps  interpret  this  "zero  point"  of  Mexican-Aztec  chronology  as  having  a  deeper 
significance,  in  as  far  as  here  the  early  period  was  accepted  with  13  +  6  +  7+13 
cycles  —  each  of  52  years  —  (=  39.52  years).  There  ist  a  dim  consciousness  of  a 
very  ancient  past  doubtlessly  mirrored  in  these  years,  as  well  as  in  the  different  zero- 
point  of  the  Maya  chronology.  The  much  higher  periods  including  more  than  ten 
thousand  years  of  the  Codex  Vaticanus  are  purely  cosmological  epochs  which  may 
be  connected  with  Praecession  —  like  the  serpent  numbers  in  the  Codex  Dresdensis. 

If  Sahagun  informs  us  that  the  Mexicans  had  stayed  about  2000  years  in  the 
country,  and  if  Azcapotzalco,  which  passed  through  an  archaeological  Teotihuacan 
culture  —  as  can  be  proved  —  and  could  (according  to  Torquemada)  look  back 
about  1571  years,  these  statements  are  by  no  means  to  be  scornfully  dismissed. 
These  best  of  the  old  authors,  perfectly  credible  in  their  statements,  did  not  simply 
invent  them.   What  we  need  do  is  to  discover  how  to  interpret  such  figures. 

The  days  of  such  phantastic  views  as  expressed  by  Brasseur  de  Bourbourg 
(who  however  should  not  be  disregarded  owing  to  his  valuable  sources)  have,  we 
trust,  gone  for  ever  since  Eduard  Seler's  epochal  studies.  W©  are  possessed  of 
considerable  information  from  Mexico  both  old  and  ancient,  but  it  is  very  difficult 
to  unravel  the  apparent  entanglement  of  statements,  and  to  render  them  uncontradictory. 
This  difficulty  is  partly  owing  to  the  fact  that  various  local  traditions  and  chrono- 
logies were  extant  which  had  been  cast  into  different  systems  by  certain  priest 
schools.  Beyond  this,  there  is  a  break  between  the  younger  Mexican-Aztec  and 
the  older  Toltec  traditions.  We  must  recollect  that  Aztec  history  was  grafted  on  to 
the  Toltec,  which  was  thus  either  moved  to  a  more  recent  time,  or  vanished,  and 
was  hidden  in  a  universal  chronology.  The  end  of  more  recent  Toltecdom  in 
1064  A.  D.  (according  to  the  Historia  de  los  Reynos  de  Colhuacän  y  de  Mexico) 
leads  us  —  with  but  a  break  of  tradition  of  only  a  few  years  —  to  the  above- 
mentioned  year  1073,  the  end  of  Toltec  renaissance,  and  the  beginning  of  Aztec 
times. 

The  question  is:  how  far  can  pre-Aztecan  times  be  historically  illuminated? 
This  requires  a  short  treatment  of  the  Toltec  problem.  Since  Seler's  archaeological 
discoveries  on  the  fresco  strata  of  Palenque,  it  is  quite  certain  that  the  Toltecs  are 
by  no  means  mythical.    Beyond  this,  there  is  so  much  reliable  old  information  about 


16  The  History  of  Ancient  Mexican  Art. 


them  that  there  can  no  longer  be  any  dispute  as  to  their  being  the  protagonists  of 
an  early  Mexican  period  of  culture.  Sahagun  ascribes  to  the  entire  Mexican  culture  a 
period  of  roughly  2000  years,  and  dates  the  destruction  of  Tollan  (the  Toltec  realm) 
about  1000  years  before  his  time  (1571  A.  D.).  i-  e.:  about  600  A.  D. 

Thus  the  most  prosperous  period  of  the  ancient  Toltecs  was  some  centuries 
before  600  A.  D.,  and  the  commencement  of  the  reign  of  the  Toltecs  —  whom  I  call 
proto-Toltecs  —  should,  according  to  Sahagun,  be  placed  at  429  B.  C.  Both  archaeolo- 
gical and  linguistic  facts  support  this  chronology.  The  newer  Mexican  dialects,  distin- 
guished by  their  Tl-sound,  represent  Aztec  known  to  us  from  three  periods :  language  of 
the  ancient  hymns  to  the  Gods  in  Sahagun,  which  we  possess  commentated  with  glossziry 
in  classical  Aztec  of  the  period  of  the  Spanish  Conquest  (16th  cent.),  and  a  finally 
present-day  vulgar  Aztec.  The  proto-Aztecs,  old  Aztecs  and  Tenochca-Aztecs  should 
be  distinguished  historically.  I  call  all  Nahuatl-speaking  tribes  Nahuatlacs. 
One  of  their  members  who  rose  to  special  political  power  are  the  Aztecs  of 
Mexico-Tenochtitlan.  The  Nahuatlac  immigration  seems  partly  to  date  back  to  some 
centuries  before  1168  A.  D.  Thus  it  is  said  that  the  Aculhuaques  of  Tetzcoco 
immigrated  in  the  47th  year  of  Xolotl's  reign  (=  836  A.  D.)  together  with  the  house 
of  Citin  (vide  Torquemada).  These  Citin  remind  us  of  the  Mecitin  ("agave 
hares")  or  Mexitin.  They  expressly  changed  their  name  again  from  Mexitin  to 
Mexica  (Cod.  Aubin  1576).  It  appears  that  the  Nahuatlacs  immigrated  in  successive 
groups.  The  11  th — 12  th  century  after  Christ  was  the  period  of  the  chief  migratory 
movement,  and  amongst  others  it  also  brought  in  1168  A.  D.  the  Tlatelolcas  who 
were  separated  from  the  Tenochcas  since  1337  A.  D.  The  dynasty  of  the  Mexico- 
Tenochtitlan  kings  {ca.  1376  A.  D.)  is  preceded  by  a  period  of  ten  war-chiefs 
quauhtlätoque),  of  which  the  first  page  of  the  Codex  Mendoza  gives  us  pictorial 
tidings.  The  time  between  these  chiefs  of  the  single  town-quarters  and  Acamapichth  is 
occupied   by   Tenuch   {ca.    1321  — 1373)   according  to   Andre   Thevet. 

The  peculiar  dialect  of  Pochutla  in  Oaxaca,  recorded  by  Boas,  is  distinguished 
itself  from  Aztec  by  certain  vocal  changes.  Here  we  appear  to  have  a  special 
dialect  which  may  be  connected  with  the  Toltec  builders  of  Mitla  mentioned  by 
Torquemada,  and  which  to  my  thinking  belongs  to  the  middle  or  late  Toltec  period 
(after   1064). 

The  style  of  the  Xochicalco  ruins,  together  with  that  of  the  Chalco  sculptures 
projects   into   a   Toltec-Aztec  transitionary   period. 

After  the  decline  of  the  ancient  and  pacific  Toltec  empire  in  about  600  A.  D. 
caused  by  Olmecs,  a  period  of  confusion  set  in  which  is  mentioned  as  "interregnum", 
the  historians  not  agreing  as  to  the  duration  of  the  time  of  this  period. 

According  to  Torquemada  and  the  dynasty  lists  in  other  old  sources  the  Toltec 
cultural,  and  certainly  religious  influence  begins  to  get  stronger  again  soon  after 
700  A.  D.  which  justifies  us  in  speaking  of  a  kind  of  Toltec  renaissance.    Cholula 


The  History  of  Ancient  Mexican  Art.  17 


was  the  centre  of  this  classical  ancienne  neo-Toltec  culture.  Older  reports  actually 
speak  of  a  ToUan-Cholollan.  Table  A  of  Kings  in  Torquemada  mentions  names 
of  kings  from  651-1031  A.  D.  (Clavigero  667-1031).  Table  B  of  Kings 
from  726—1064   A.   D.    (Codex  Zumarraga  799—1160). 

The  centre  of  old  Tollan  was  in  Teotihuacan,  Tollantzinco  and  Tollan. 
I  succeeded  at  Teotihuacan  in  1909,  by  excavations  in  the  Teopannacazco,  in  establishing 
the  presence  of  three  successive  cultural  strata,  which  were  later  found  to  be  correct 
by  other  explorers,  and  were  also  found  in  other  places.  Remains  of  Aztec  culture 
belong  to  the  upper  stratum,  those  of  Toltec  to  the  middle  one,  and  a  primitive 
(Otomi)  culture  to  the  lowest.  The  remains  of  Toltec  culture  are  distinguished 
by  fine  stucco  paintings  and  brilliant  emerald  green  colours.  The  figures  of  the 
Teotihuacan  temple  frescos  conformable  to  the  paintings  of  the  Aljojuca  vessels 
show  an  archaic  style  which  changed  to  epigonal  style  in  Aztec  times  based  on 
the  fundamental  style  of  the  Estanzuela  (Tepic)  encrusted  ceramic,  the  art  of 
which  can  be  traced  far  to  the  north.  The  rest  of  the  ancient  Toltecs  were  probably 
mixed  to  a  great  extent  with  the  Otomi  (Chichimeca-Otomi).  As  the  pioneers  of 
culture  came  from  the  north,  and  Chichimecs  however  were  settled  in  the  north 
of  the  Mexican  high  plateau,  "Chichimeca"  became  a  title  of  honour,  both  for  the 
ancient  Toltecs,  as  well  as  especially  for  the  Chichimeca  Aculhuaque  of  Tetzcoco, 
whose  beginnings  reach  back  to  323  A.  D.  i);  /.  e.  at  a  time  when  ancient 
Toltec  influences  were  extending  to  neighbouring  Otomi  tribes.  Nahuatlacan  Aculhuas 
seem  to  appear  as  early  as  836  A.  D.  The  Citin  clan  mentioned  in  connection 
with  the  above  reminds  us  of  the  names  of  ancient  Toltec  relics  such  as  Ecitin 
{yide  supra:  Mecitin). 

The  end  of  the  earlier  "young"  Toltecs  is  completed  in  a  second  Toltec 
dissolution  by  the  suicide  of  Uemac  in  Cincalco  (1064 — 1070  A.  D.).  We  hear 
of  Cholula  at  the  time  when  the  migrating  Toltecs  begin  to  spread.  The  beginnmg 
of  the  Kingdom  in  Tepeyacac  and  Cholula  is  dated  1168  A.  D.  But  this  only  means 
that  since  this  time  the  predomination  of  foreign  Olmecs,  who  were  however 
already  Toltecisized,  was  disrupted  with  the  assistance  of  warlike  Nahuatlacs. 
For  Instance.  Tepeyacac  counts  332  years  (Herrera  2.  10.  21,  p.  285/6)  since  the 
original  home  of  Chicomoztoc  ("Place  of  seven  Caves")  till  the  beginning  of  the 
kingdom.    The   year   1168   A.    D.   minus   332   years   takes   us   to   836   A.    D.,   the 


')  Everything  that  is  Chichimec  before  circa  320  A.  D.  would  be  proto-Chichimec.  The  period 
of  469  years  in  Torquemada  (320 — 789  A.  D.)  civers  the  ancient  Chichimec  period  based  on  an 
old  Otomi  stratum.  The  time  from  789—989  (Xolotl)  may  be  regarded  as  a  middle  period,  that 
from  989 — 1 1 39  A.  D.  (Nopaltzln  Pochotl),  and  1139— 1175  A.  D.  (Tlotzin-Pochotl)  may  be  termed 
a  newer  period.  About  this  time  the  dynasty  poses  to  a  later  one  of  Tetzcoco  in  the  person  of 
TIaltecatzin  Quinatzin  (1175 — 1258  A.  D.)  whose  accession  to  the  throne  Sahagun  (VIII,  3)  states 
as  being  in   1246  A.  D. 

The  history  of  ancient  mexican  art  2 


18  The  History  of  Ancient  Mexican  Art. 

above-menitoned  47th  year  of  Xolotl's  reign  as  the  beginning  of  the  Aculhuaque  of 
Tetzcoco. 

There  are  plain  signs  in  Xochicalco  of  the  admixture  of  Toltec  art  activity 
with  aboriginal.  Here  we  should  note  the  calculiform  framing  of  the  day  symbols 
hieroglyphs,  and  employment  of  a  line  instead  of  dots  for  the  number  5.  as  in  the 
Codex  Fejervary  Mayer  and  the  Codex  Cospi  on  the  one  hand,  and  with  the 
Mayas  on  the  other.  It  is  evident  that  we  have  here  an  older  style  which  was 
also    retained    by    the    Tzapotecs    (Monte    Alban    reliefs). 

We  may  presume  that  ancient  Toltec  culture  rescued  the  younger  Toltecs 
extended  to  the  surrounding  autochtones  at  an  early  period  through  pacific  and 
religious  channels,  and  along  the  trade  routes.  It  is  thus  that  the  Toltecs,  Olmecs, 
Tarascs,  Mixteco-Tzapotecs,  Chiapanecs,  and  Mayas  were  repeatedly  fructified 
by  the  benefits  of  Toltec  culture  and  science. 

The  Tzap>otec  calender  is  retentive  of  the  particularly  ancient  names  of  the 
20  day  symbols.  The  Toltec  calender  with  hieroglyphic  characters  found  its  way  via 
the  Tzapotecs  to  the  aboriginal  Mayas  of  the  boundary  highlands  between  Chiapas 
and  Guatemala,  following  ancient  trade  routes  leading  from  Tabasco  from  the 
Rio  Usumacinta  upwards  to  Peten,  Guatemala  and  further  to  Central  America.  Those 
aboriginal  Mayas  developed  the  old  Toltec  picture-writing  independently  to  peculiar 
hieroglyphics,  which  in  their  inward  conception  of  ideas,  betray  to  the  connoisseur  a 
closer  relationship  with  the  Mexican  pictures  than  one  would  presume  in  view  of 
the  great  external  differences  between  the  two  systems  of  writing. 

The  Leiden  jade  plate  originating  from  the  boimdary  district  of  Belize  and 
Guatemala  dates  at  the  latest  from  the  10th  century  A.  D.,  and  deals  with  the 
old  end  of  the  year  of  the  month  Xul  ("end").  The  "Birdgod"  of  Tuxtla  is 
considerably  older  according  to  my  calculations,  namely  158  years  and  225  days,  and 
thus  belongs  to  the  8  th  century  A.  D.  The  date  of  this  piece,  8  (caban)  =  20  Mac, 
refers  perhaps  to  the  end  of  a  year.  The  birdbeaked  God  of  Tuxtla  is  connected  with 
forms  of  Quetzalcouatl,  and  old  Mexican  mosaics  in  the  Copenhagen  and  London 
museums  support  this  theory. 

The  Maya  calender  certainly  developed  under  the  influence  of  the  ancient 
Toltecs  several  centuries  before  the  8  th  after  Christ.  Ancient  Toltec  influence 
extended  from  Guatemala  via  Peten  and  Belize  to  Bacalar,  and  brought  the 
first  group  of  the  Itza  peoples  to  old  Chich'enitzä  the  beginning  of  which 
dates  back  to  about  the  commencement  of  the  2nd  quarter  of  the  6th  century  A.  D. 
according  to  the  books  of  Chilam  Balam.  More  recent  Toltec  influence  came 
later  from  Champoton  in  the  west  to  northern  Yucatan.  Especially  Chich'enitzä 
and  Mayapan  show  Toltec  influence.  In  Chich'enitzä  we  recognize  elements  of 
the  Toltec  style  of  Teotlhuacan  as  well  as  also  those  celebrated  stone  snake 
columns  which  Sahagun  emphasizes  for  Tula   (Tollan).    Remains  of  such  columns 


The  History  of  Ancient  Mexican  Art.  19 

in  the  form  of  an  "erect  snake",  which  may  also  signify  quetzacouatl,  have  been  found 
in  Tula,  and  are  deposited  in  the  Museo  Nacional  of  the  Mexican  capital.  The 
peculiar  recumbent  stone  figures  of  the  so-called  Chac-Mol  type  are  distributed  as 
far   as    west    Salvador;    this    should   point    to    Toltec   mfluence. 

The  Santa  Rita  frescos  in  northern  Belize  also  betray  Toltec  influence,  perhaps 
coming  from  the  south  with  a  strange  admixture  of  Maya  elements. 

The  magnificent  stone  figures  of  Santa  Lucia  de  Cozumalhuapa  in  southern 
Guatemala  are  remains  of  ancient  Pipil  culture. 

It  is  probable  that  the  oldest  culture  from  Chich'enitza  to  south  Belize  is  connected 
with  ancient  Toltec  seats  in  the  central  Motagua  valley  from  which  offshoots  can 
be  traced  archaeologically  on  the  one  hand  to  northern  Honduras,  and  on  the  other 
to  south  Salvador. 

If  Mexican  culture  has  its  roots  in  the  Sonora  and  Pueblos  districts,  then  the 
strange  relationship  between  archaeological  discoveries  in  the  southern  states  of  the 
North  American  Union  and  those  of  ancient  Mexico  become  more  comprehen- 
sible. We  may  presume  that  certain  influences  of  a  very  ancient  culture  with 
protogonal  style  emanated  years  ago  from  the  Pueblos  district  which  sprea<l 
partly  to  the  district  of  the  Mississippi  mounds,  and  spreading  further,  fructified 
Mexico.  It  will  require  close  investigation  to  discover  how  far  this  oldest  Pueblos 
culture  can  be  traced  to  the  north  along  the  Rio  Colorado.  The  Pueblos  district 
will  provide  the  key  to  a  correct  comprehension  of  ancient  Mexican  culture.  In 
connection  with  this  are  further  questions  as  to  the  links  with  the  higher  north-west 
of  America  which  are  to-day  not  yet  ripe  for  discussion. 


Bibliography. 


1.  Channing  Arnold  and  Fred  J.  Tabor  Frost,  The  American  Egypt.  London  1909.  8°.  391  pp. 
ill.  Maps. 

2.  A.  F.  Bandelier,  Rep.  of  Am.  Arch.  Tour  in  Mexico  in  1881,  Papers  Arch.  Inst.  Am.,  Am.  Ser.  II. 
Boston  1884. 

3.  Leopoldo  Batres,  Exploration  of  Mount  Alban.  Mexico  1902;  —  Visita  a  los  monum.  arq.  de 
"La  Quemada",  Zacatecas.  Mexico  1903.  —  Teotihuacan,  Mexico  1906.  —  Civilizacion  prehist. 
de  las  riberas  del  Papaloapam  y  Costa  de  Sotavento,  Estado  de  Vera  Cruz.    Mexico  1908. 

4.  H.  Beuchat,  Manuel  d'Archeologie  Americaine.    Paris  1912.  —  8°.    773  pp.  ill. 

5.  Franz  Boas,  Archaeological  investigations  in  the  valley  of  Mexico  by  the  Intern.  School  (1911 — 12) 
Intern.  Congr.  of  Am.    London  191 2  pt.  I  (London  191 3)  p.   176 — 179. 

6.  G.  Brühl,  Die  Kulturvölker  Altamerikas.    Nevf  York  1875 — 87. 

7.  Munoz  Camargo,  Hist,  de  Tlaxcala,  edid.  Chavero,  Mexico   1892. 

8.  Chimalpain,  Relaciones;  Mss.  Bibl.  Nat.    Paris. 

9.  Clavigero,  Storia  antica  del  Messico.    Esena  1780 — 81.    4  vols. 

10.  Diego  Duran,  Hist,  de  la  Nueva  Espana  y  islas  de  tierra  firma,  edid.  J.  Fern.  Ramirez,  Mexico  1867. 
8°.    2  vols. 

11.  Escuela  Internacional  de  Arqueologia  y  Etnologia  Americanas,  Afio  Escolar  de  191 1  a  1912.  Me- 
xico 1 91 2.    XX  pp.  (cf.  also  14). 

12.  J.  W.  Fewkes,  Certain  Antiquities  of  Eastern  Mexico,  Bur.  of  Ethn.  XXV  (1907  Washingt.) 
p.  231 — 296.  —  Antiquities  of  the  Gulf  Coast  of  Mexico.  Smithson.  Misc.  Coll.  Vol.  70  No.  2 
(Wash.   19 1 8). 

13.  E.  Förstemann,  Editions  of  the  Dresden  Maya-Manuscript:  Leipzig  1880,  Dresden  1892.  4°.  — 
Commentary  on  the  Maya  Cod.  in  the  Ryl.  Public  Library  Dresden.    Dresden  1901. 

14.  Manuel  Gamio,  Arqueologia  de  Atzcapotzalco,  Intern.  Congr.  of  Am.  London  1912  pt.  I  (Lond. 
1913)  p.  180 — 87.  —  Investigaciones  arq.  en  Mexico  1914 — 15,  XIX.  Intern.  Congr.  Am.  Washington 
191 5  (1917)  p.  i25ff.  —  Los  Ultimos  descrubrimientos  arq.  en  Teotihuacan.  "Ethnos  Tpmo"  I 
Num.  I   Mexico  1920  p.  7 — 14  (cf.  also  11). 

15.  tH.  K.  Häberlin  in  the  American  Anthropologist  N.  Ser.  21  Nr.   i  (1919)  p.  61 — 70. 

16.  E.  T.  Hamy,  Galerie  am.  du  Musee  d'Ethnogr.  du  Trocadero.    Paris  1897.    Fol. 

17.  Historia  de  los  Reynos  de  Colhuacän  y  de  Mexico  Original  Copy  by  Ixtlilxochitl.  Ms.  mex.  in  the 
Bibl.  del  Mus.  Nac.  de  Mexico.  (Refound  thereby  the  author  in  1909.)  Copies  in  the  Bibl.  Nat. 
Paris;  cf.  W.  Lehmann,  Zts.  f.  Ethn.  Berlin.  Bd.  38  p.  752ff.;  cf.  W.  Lehmann,  in  the  Journal  de  la 
Soc.  des  Americanistes  Paris  N.  S.  Ill  No.  2  p.  239—97;  cf.  incomplete  and  faulty  reprint  =  Anales 
de  Quauhtitlan  in  Anales  del  Mus.  Nac.  de  Mexico,  Tomo  III  Apend.  Ixtlilxochitl's  Ms. 
(1568— 1648)  =  Boturini  Catalogo  §  VIII  Nr.  13. 

18.  Historia  Tolteca-Chichimeca,  Ms.  Aubin-Goupil,  Mexican  Coll.,  Paris,  Bibl.  Nat. 

19.  Holmes,  Arch.  Studies  Among  the  Ancient  Cities  of  Mexico,  Field  Colomb.  Mus.,  Anthr.  Ser. 
1895—97. 


The  History  of  Ancient  Mexican  Art.  21 

20.  Walter  Hough,  Arch.  Field  Work  in  Northern  Arizona,  U.  St.  Nat.  Mus.  for  1901,  Washington 
1903  p.  279 — 358  ill.  —  Culture  of  the  Ancient  Pueblos  of  the  Upper  Gila  Region,  New  Mexico 
and  Arizona,  Smithson.    States  Nat.  Mus.  Bulletin  87,  Washington  1914.    8°.    139  pp.  ill. 

21.  Al.  Hrdliöka,  The  "Chichimecs",  Am.  Anthrop.  Lancaster  1903. 

22.  Al.v.  Humboldt,  Vues  des  Cordilleres  et  monuments  des  peuples  indigenes  de  I'Amerique.  Paris  1813, 

23.  Ixtlilxochitl,  Hist.  Chichimeca  apud  Kingsborough,  Mexican.  Antiquities  vol.  IX  fol.   197 — 316; 

—  Relaciones  ibid.  fol.  317 — 468;  both  works  edited  by  Chavero,  Mexico   i  891,   1892. 

24.  Thomas  Joyce,  Mexican  Archaeology,  London  1914. 

25.  Diego  de  Landa,  Relac.  de  las  cosas  de  Yucatan,  edid.  Brasseur  Paris  1864  edid.  de  la  Rada  y  Del- 
gado  Madrid  1881,  cf.  Col.  Doc.  ined.  Ha.  Ser.  vol.  XHI  (1900)  p.  265 — 408;  important  additional 
information  in  Cogolludo,  Hist,  de  Yucatan,  Madrid  1688  (2.  ed.  Merida  1842,  3.  ed.  1897). 

26.  W.  Lehmann,  Altmexikanische  Mosaiken,  "Globus"  90  Nr.  20  (1906)  p.  318 — 322  (ad  vide  Xolotl 
Vienna  ibid.  p.  319  note  15);  "Globus"  Vol.  91  Nr.  21  (1907)  p.  332 — 5;  cf.  also  Oppel,  "Globus' 
1896.  —  Ergebnisse  und  Aufgaben  der  mexik.  Forschung,  Archiv  f.  Anthr.  VI  (1907)  p.  113 — 168, 
Engl,  translation.  Paris  1909.  —  Ergebnisse  einer  Forschungsreise  in  Mittelamerika  und  Mexiko 
(1907 — 09),  Zts.  f.  Ethn.  Vol.  42  (1910)  p.  687 — 749.  —  The  Hist,  de  los  Reynos  de  Colh.  etc. 
v.  supra   17.  —  Zentralamerika,  2  Vols.,  Berlin  (D.  Reimer)  1920 — 21. 

27.  Leon  y  Gama,  Descripcion  hist,  y  cronol.  de  las  dos  piedras  .  .  .    Mexico  1790. 

28.  Herzog  Fl.  de  Loubat,  Facsimile-Edit,  of  the  Cod.  Borgia,  Cod.  Vat.  A  and  B,  Cod.  Fejervary- 
Mayer,  Cod.  Cospi,  Tonalamatl  Aubin  etc. 

29.  C.  Lumholtz,  Unkown  Mexico,  London  1903  2  vols.  —  New  Trails  in  Mexico  (1909 — 10).   London. 

—  Leipzig  1912,  8°.    411   pp.  ill. 

30.  Teobert  Maler,  Yukatekische  Forschungen,  "Globus"  Vol.  82  Nr.  13  u.  14  (1902)  p.  197 — 230.  ill. 

31.  Brantz  Mayer,  Mexico  As  It  Was  And  as  It  Is.    Philadelphia  1847. 

32.  A.  P.  Maudslay,  in  Goodman  and  Salvin's  Biologia  Centrali- Americana,  Archaeol.,  London  1889 
to  1902. 

33.  Memoirs  of  the  Peabody  Museum  Am.  Arch,  and  Ethn.,  Havard  Univ.  Cambridge. 

34.  Mendieta,  Hist,  ecclesiast.  Indiana,  Col.  Doc.  p.  la  hist,  de  Mexico  III  (1870);  Nueva  col.  doc. 
p.  las  hist,  de  Mex.  IV  (1892). 

35.  Earl  H.  Morris,  The  Aztec  Ruin  (Pueblo),  Anthr.  Pap.  Am.  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.  vol.  XXVI  pt.  I  New 
York  191 9,  io8  pp.  (Culture  Strata  p.   io4ff.). 

36.  Motolinia,  Hist,  de  los  Indios  de  la  Nueva  Espana,  Col.  Doc.  p.  la  hist,  de  Mexico  I  (1858).  — 
Memoriales,  edid.  Luis  Garcia  Pimentel,  Mexico  1903. 

37.  Orozco  y  Berra,  Hist.  ant.  y  de  la  conq.  de  Mexico.    Mexico  1880.    4  vols. 

38.  Oviedo  y  Valdes,  La  hist.  gen.  de  las  Indias,  Sevilla  1533;  reedition  of  the  Real  Acad,  de  la  Hist. 
Madrid   1851 — 55,  4  vols. 

39.  Penafiel,  Monumentos  del  arte  antiguo  mexicano.    Berlin  1890.    3  vols. 

40.  Remesal,  Hist.  gen.  de  las  Indias  occid.  y  particular  de  la  gobern.  de  Chiapas  y  Guatemala,  Madrid 
1619 — 20. 

41.  Sahagun,  Hist,  de  las  Cosas  de  la  Nueva  Espana,  edid.  Bustamente.  Mexico  1829,  3  vols.  (=  Kings- 
borough  vol.  VII);  Original-Mss.  a)  Bibl.  del  Palacio  and  Bibl.  de  la  Acad,  in  Madrid,  b)  Bibl.  Lau- 
renziana  in  Florenz;  French  translation  by  Remi  Simeon,  Paris  1880. 

42.  Ed.  Seler,  Ges.  Abhandlungen  zur  Am.  Sprach-  u.  Altertumskunde,  Berlin  (A.  Asher)  I  (1902), 
II  (1904),  III  (1908),  V  (191 5).  —  Die  sog.  sakralen  Gefäße  der  Zapoteken,  Veröff.  K.  Mus.  f.V. 
Berlin  I  (Berlin  1890)  p.  1882 — 8.  —  Wandmalereien  von  Mitla,  Berlin  1895.  —  Die  alten  An- 
siedelungen von  Chacula,  Berlin  1901.  Tonolamatl  Aubin,  Berlin  1900.  —  Cod.  Fejerväry-Mayer, 
Berlin  1901.  —  Cod.  Vatic.  B,  Berlin  1902.  —  Codex  Borgia,  Berlin  1904,  1906  with  Index  by 
W.   Lehmann   1909.    —  La  Quemada  (Zacatecas),   Ges.  Abh.  III  p.   545 — 559.  —  Similarity  of 


22  The  History  of  Ancient  Mexican  Art. 

design  of  some  Teotihuacan  frescoes  and  certain  Mexican  pottery  objects,  Intern.  Congr.  of  Aox. 
London  1912,  pt.  I  (1913)  p-  194 — 202.  —  Die  Teotihuacan-Kultur  des  Hochlands  von  Mexico 
V  (191 5)  p.  405 — 585.  —  Beobachtungen  und  Studien  in  den  Ruinen  von  Palenque,  Abh.  Akd. 
Wiss.  Berlin   191 5.  —  Die  Quetzolcouatl-Fassaden  yukatekischer  Bauten,  ibid.   1916. 

43.  C.  Seier,  Auf  alten  Wegen  in  Mexiko  und  Guatemala,  Berlin  1900.  —  Die  Huaxteken-Slg.  im 
K.  Mus.  f.  V.  Berlin,  Baessler  Archiv  Bd.  V  (191 6). 

44.  Leslie  Spier,  An  Outline  for  a  Chronology  of  Zuni  Ruins,  Anthr.  Papers  Am.  Mus.  Nat.  Hist.  vol. 
XVni  pt.  HI,  New  York  1917,  p.  209 — 331  ill.;  Map  and  Bibliography. 

45.  H.  J.  Spinden,  A  study  of  Maya  Art,  its  Subject  Matter  and  Hist.  Development,  Mem.  Peabody 
Mus.  Am.  Arch,  and  Ethn.,  Harvard  Univ.  Cambridge  1913.  —  Ancient  Civilisation  of  Mexico 
and  Centralamerica,  New  York,  Am.  Nat.  Hist.  Handbook  Series  No.  3. 

46.  VV.  Staub,  Begleitwort  zur  Huaxteken-Slg.  im  Hist.  Mus.  in  Bern,  Jahresber.  über  die  Ethnogr. 
Slg.  in  Bern  1920,  Bern  1921,  p.  36 — T]  ill.  and  Map;  cf.  "El  Mexico  Antiguo"  (publ.  Herrn.  Beyer) 
Tomo  I,  Num.  7  y  8  (1921)  p.  218 — 236. 

47.  H.  Strebel,  Alt-Mexico,  Hamburg  and  Leipzig  1885.  —  Ornamente  auf  Tongefäßen  aus  Altmexiko, 
Hamburg  and  Leipzig  1904. 

48.  Tezozomoc,  Crönica  mexicana,  edid.  Orozco  y  Berra,  Mexico  1878. 

49.  J.  de  Torquemada,  Monarquia  Indiana.    Madrid  161 3;  edid.  Barcia,  Madrid  1723. 


List  of  Illustrations. 

Tripodal  grey-reddish  earthenware  bowl  in  the  shape  of  a  human  figure;  primitive  style.  29  cm. 
high.  Ethnolographical  Museum,  Berlin,  No.  IV.  Ca.  34  398.  Colima.  Consul  Vogel's  Collection. 
Red-brownish  earthenware  animal  figure;  dog  species  (perhaps  young  hairless  non-barking  dog 
bred  for  fattening  purposes;  dachshund  species.'').  49  cm.  long.  Ethn.  Mus.  Berlin,  No.  IV,  Ca. 
34  429.    Colima.    Consul  Vogel's  Coll. 

Earthenware  vessel  with  serratures  and  stripes  formed  by  hatched  triangles.  17.5  cm.  high.  Ethn. 
Mus.  Berlin,  No.  IV.  Ca.  34  487.    Colima.    Consul  Vogel's  Coll. 

Earthenware  vessel  painted  black  and  white.  21  cm.  high  including  handle.  Ethn.  Mus.  Berlin, 
No.  IV.  Ca.  9381.    Tanquian,  Huaxteca.    Seler  Coll. 

Earthenware  vessels.  15.5  cm.  high  covered  with  stucco  and  finely  painted;  black  background; 
colours:  green,  white,  red,  and  yellow  with  black  lines.  Singing  priests  (breath  issuing  from  mouth 
decorated  with  flowers  =  song)  in  rich  garments  with  waving  feather  head-dress,  an  incense  pocket 
in  left  hand,  the  right  pouring  a  wine  offering  on  the  ground  (cf.  priests  pouring  pulque  in  front 
of  the  Moon  Picture  in  the  frescos  on  the  south  wall  in  the  backroom  of  the  Teopanacazco  in  Teo- 
tihuacan).  Ethn.  Mus.  Berlin,  No.  IV,  Ca.  35  789  and  35  790.  San  Rodrigo  near  Aljojuca,  district 
of  Chalchicomula.  Honorato  J.  Carrasco  Coll.  —  Ed.  Seler.  Teotihuacan  culture,  archaic  style- 
cf.  Seler  Hist.  Essays  V,  p.  529  et  seq.  (dealing  with  my  first  strata  excavations  in  Teotihuacan) 
and  plate  LXIII. 

Front  r.  side  of  a  blue-green  jade  figure  originating  perhaps  from  the  convent  of  Weingarten  (in 
Wurtemberg),  now  in  the  Linden  Museum  Stuttgart.  —  29.7  cm.  high.  Mouth  and  cheeks  with 
red-tinged  pieces  of  mussels,  and  yellowish  fragments  in  the  nose.  Xolotl  as  death  guide  of  the 
sun.  Mexican-Aztec.  Cf.  H.  Fischer,  "Globus",  Vol.  85,  No.  22  (Brunswick  1904),  p.  345 — 348, 
Seler  Ges.  Abh.  Ill,  p.  392 — 409. 

Front  and  1.  side  view  of  a  squatting  Xolotl-like  figure  8  cm,  high  of  dark  brown  wood  with  hair. 
covered  cavity  behind.  The  horn-like  projection  gilded  at  points,  probably  representing  the  dog's 
ears  of  the  dog-shaped  Xolotl;  eyes  and  teeth  made  of  mussel  shells.  Valuable  insertions  some  of 
which  had  been  fixed  with  pins  and  have  been  lost  out  of  the  ears,  the  butterfly-shaped  breast 
ornament  and  the  carved  triangular  side  pieces.  Projecting  out  of,  and  clear  of  the  navel,  is  a  small 
beautiful  mosaic-work  head.  The  frontlet  is  of  alternating  light  turquoise  blue  and  dark  green 
mosaic  with  dark  red  plaques  on  the  clasp  (right);  oblique  stripes  run  across  each  cheek  (on  the  r.  2, 
on  the  1.  i);  the  right  ear-ornaments  yellow  green  material  fastened  by  thread;  the  eyes  of  mussel 
shells  with  obsidian  pupil  (1.);  the  mouth  of  mussel  shell  with  dark  red  congue  plaque.  The  Xolotl- 
f Igure  has  an  anal  opening  made  of  a  flat-disc  with  central  malachite  piece.  The  male  genitals  are 
carefully  made,  the  glans  penis  consisted  of  an  inserted  piece  now  missing.  There  is  a  short  piece 
of  square  wire  between  the  conic  ears.  Hof  Mus.  Vienna,  No.  12  585.  The  figure  came  from  the 
collection  of  the  Coin  and  Antiquity  Cabinet  Vienna,  in  the  inventory  of  which  it  seems  to 
be  registered  as  No.  164.  The  Mexican  collection  once  contained  there  (Nos.  157 — 270)  dates  from 
the  property  left  by  the  Emperor  Maximilian  of  Mexico,  and  was  purchased  by  the  Treasury  Dept. 
in  1868  for  1483  florins  (old  currency),  but  handed  to  the  ethnographical  dept.  of  the  Natural  History 
Museum  Vienna  in   1881.     Cf.    Lehmann  "Altmexikan.   Mosaiken",  "Globus",  V'ol.   90,   No.   20 


24  The  History  of  Ancient  Mexican  Art. 


(1906),  pp.  318 — 322,  in  particular  p.  319,  annotation  No.  15.   I  am  indebted  to  governement  Coun- 
cillor Heger  in  Vienna  for  photographs  and  information. 

8.  Jaguar-shaped  vessel  of  light  brown  wood  encrusted  with  mussel-shell  mosaic  and  coloured  stone 
plaques  embedded  in  a  resinous  substance;  the  bowl  formed  lacquered  part  shows  remains  of  gold 
foil;   16  cm.  high,  Lond.  Brit.  Mus.  Christy  Coll. 

9.  Stone  jaguar,  2.75  m.  long,  95  cm.  high,  made  of  smoothed  andesite  (lava  stone)  with  traces  of  colour 
(black  spots  on  white  ground)  with  a  hollow  in  back  akin  to  bowls  used  to  catch  sacrificial  blood; 
found  in  courtyard  of  the  Secretaria  de  justicia,  corner  of  the  Primera  calle  del  Reloj  and  the  Calle 
Cordoba  in  the  vicinity  of  the  excavated  temple  pyramid  with  front  facing  south.  Museo  Nacional 
de  Mexico.    Cf.  Anales  del  Mus.  Nac.  de  Mex.    Vol.  VH,  Seler,  Ges.  Abh.  II,  p.  901,  Aztec  style. 

10,  II.  Carved-wood  drum  from  Malinalco,  dist.  of  Tenancingo  in  the  State  of  Mex.  covered  on  top 
with  skin  (tlalpan  ueuetl);  97  cm.  high,  dimension  on  top  42  cm.  greatest  dim.  52,  thickness  of 
sides  4  cm.;  dancing  and  singing  jaguars  and  eagles  are  depicted  on  it;  the  sign  Naui  olin  ("4"sun 
movements")  and  other  war  symbols.  Now  in  Toluca  Museum,  reproductions  of  photographs  by 
Frau  Caecilie  Seler.  cf.  Seler  Mittlg.  Anthrop.  Ges.  Vienna,  Vol.  34,  p.  222 — 274,  and  Hist.  Essays 
ni,  p.  221 — 304.    Aztec  style. 

12.  Stone  figure  of  smooth  grey  andesite  with  folded  neck  ribbon,  frontlet,  ear-pegs  and  loin-cloth 
a  hollow  In  the  chest.  R.  hand  broken  off,  1.  hand  closed  like  a  ring.  Low  priest,  torchbearer? 
72.5  cm.  high.  Ethn.  Mus.  Berlin,  No.  IV,  Ca.  341.  Uhde  Coll.  Cf.  similar  stone  fig.  of  the  ex- 
cavations In  the  Calle  de  las  Escalerlllas  (Mex.  City),  however  without  nape  ornament,  but  with 
Incense-ball  in  r.  hand;  see  Ges.  Abh.  E.  H,  p.  890.  Aztec  style  (young-epigonal).  The  execution 
is  no  longer  constrained,  though  the  attitude  is  stiff. 

13.  Stone  toad  with  the  hieroglyh  chalchiultl  ("green  jewel")  on  belly.  42  cm.  long.  Mus.  Nac.  de  Mex. 
(No.  22).    From  photographs  by  Frau  C.  Seler.    Aztec  style. 

14.  Face  mask  of  smoothed  stone  with  mild  expression.  On  the  back  the  Wind  God  QuetzalcouatI  In 
basso-relievo  as  Chiconaui  eecatl  "9  Wind".  14  cm.  high.  Ethn.  Mus.  Berlin.  No.  26  077.  Seler 
Coll.    Cf.  Ges.  Abh.  E.   H,  p.  953  et  seq. 

15.  Face  mask  of  smoothed  stone  with  wild  expression.  Mus.  Nac.  de  Mex.  Aztec  style.  (Young 
epigonal.) 

16.  Group:  mother  with  child  of  dark  greenish  carefully  smoothed  stone.  41  cm.  high.  Eth.  Mus.  Berlin. 
Dr.  W.  Lehmann's  Coll.  (presented  by  His  Ex.  the  Duke  of  Loubat).  Acapulco.  Orilla  del  Rio 
de  San  Pedro,  Guerrero  state.  Old  epigonal  style.  Strictly  conventionalized  execution  though 
showing  evidence  of  Internal  unconstrained  rhythm. 

17.  Clay  figure,  painted  white-yellowish,  red,  blue,  and  orange-yellow.  Macullxochltl-Xochlpllll  (the 
"Flower  Prince"),  the  God  of  the  Rising  Morning  Sun  in  the  mask  of  the  Coxoxtll-bird  with  high 
feather  cap  singing  at  dawn.  35  cm.  high.  Ethn.  Mus.  Berlin,  No.  IV,  Ca.  10  957,  Seler  Coll.  Teo- 
tltlan  del  Camino,  Frontier  of  the  Tzapotecan  country.  Cf.  Seler  Ges.  Abh.  II,  p.  886;  wall  paintings 
of  Mitla,  Berlin  1895,  Plate  XIII.    Last  branch  of  classical  style. 

18.  Page  I  of  the  Codex  Fejervary-Mayer  in  Liverpool.  Free  Public  Museum  (12  014  M).  The  period 
of  260  days  =  tonal-amatl,  based  on  the  fundamental  row  of  20  day  symbols  distributed  as  a  cos- 
mological  picture  over  the  4  cardinal  points  with  the  Fire  God,  "the  mother,  the  father  of  the  gods" 
in  the  middle.  Photographs  of  the  coloured  edition  of  the  above-mentioned  picture  manuscript 
published  by  His  Ex.  the  Duke  of  Loubat.  The  fusion  of  two  perspectives  Is  noteworthy.  Last 
branch  of  younger  Toltec  style. 

19.  Mug-shaped  alabaster  vessel  with  superimposed  lizard  shaped  figure  of  an  animal.  23  cm.  high. 
Mus.  Nac.  de  Mex.  Classical  style  or  last  remnant  of  same.  Alabaster  figures  being  found  in  Mix- 
teco-Tzapotec  districts.  I  observed  however  their  southermost  occurence  in  Guanacaste  (Costa 
Rica)  which  points  to  the  classical  influence  of  Cholula. 


The  History  of  Ancient  Mexican  Art.  25 

20.  Melon  fruit  of  smoothed  stone  (diorite),  28  cm.  long  and  18  cm.  high.  Mus.  Nac.  de  Mex.  Perhaps 
Totonac  origin. 

21.  Tajin  from  Papantla.  Chief  fa<;ade  looking  east.  The  rising  walls  of  the  intervals  of  the  step- 
pyramid  ornamented  with  niches  which  are  the  characteristic  feature  of  Totonac  architecture. 
Cf.  Seler.  Ges.  Abh.  Ill,  p.  538;  Del  Paso  y  Troncoso,  Catalogo  Exposicion  Hist.  Am.  Madrid. 
Tomo  n,  p.   16  et  seq. 

22.  Stone  sculpture  —  grooved  underneath  —  of  the  so-called  "Palma  type"  in  the  form  of  a  conventiona- 
lized pelican.  Jalapa.  Heredia  Coll.,  Mexico.  From  an  original  photograph  by  Dr.  W.  Bauer  in  the 
author's  possession.  Totonac  style.  The  meaning  of  the  palma  pieces  is  a  mystery.  Palmas  were 
found  placed  in  graves.  Perhaps  they  were  put  in  front  of  the  corpse  of  a  revered  person  as  a  pro- 
tective spirit  of  the  grave  and  as  the  soul's  companion  in  its  subterranean  journey?  (Cf.  Seler 
G.  A.  HI,  p.  542).  Palmas,  be  it  noted,  are  characteristic  of  the  Totonac  district.  But  I  also  saw  such 
a  palma  piece  in  western  Salvador.  Narrow  stone  heads,  stone  yokes,  alabaster  vessels,  glazed  ceramic, 
Chac-Mol  figures  and  palmas  seem  to  belong  to  an  ancient  period  of  culture.  In  reference  to  palmas, 
vide  Seler  in  Boas  Anniversary  Vol.  New  York,   1906,  p.  302  et  seq. 

23.  Palma  stone  sculpture,  60  cm.  high.  Sacrificial  male  victim  whosebreast  is  opened  by  a  cross  cut, 
the  arms  pinioned  with  ropes.  Hair  dressed  in  shape  of  a  plaited  grass-tuft  (zacatapayolli),  perhaps 
as  a  receptacle  for  the  agave-leaf  thorns  smeared  with  the  sacrificial  blood.  Heredia  Coll.  Mexico. 
From  an  original  photograph  by  Dr.  W.  Bauer  in  the  author's  possession.  Coatepec,  Jalapa.  Totonac 
style  (cast  in  Berlin  Ethn.  Mus.  No.  IV,  Ca.  32462,  cast  No  4516). 

24.  Stone  head  with  very  hollow  cheeks  and  open  mouth.  25  cm.  high.  Mus.  Nac.  de  Mex.  Vera  Cruz 
state.    Perhaps  Totonac  origin. 

25.  Fragment  of  a  child's  figure  of  whitish  finely  sifted  clay,  showing  grey  when  broken.  Two  small 
teeth  in  upper  and  lower  jaw.  A  hole  in  top  of  head  probably  intended  for  an  ornament.  Photo- 
graphs by  Frau  C.  Seler.  The  original  in  Seler's  possession.  Santiago  Tuxtla  (acquired  end  1910). 
Olmec  style;  presumably  already  influenced  by  Spaniards  (vide  plate  36). 

26.  Human  clay  figure  with  large  rattle  or  incense  staff.  The  lower  left  part  of  face  covered  with 
caoutchouc  layers;  holes  are  pierced  round  right  half  of  the  mouth.  The  ear-pegs  are  pointed  and 
conical.  The  upraised  left  hand  contains  a  roundish  object  (perhaps  manopla?).  Heredia  Coll., 
San  Andres  de  Tuxtla.  From  a  photograph  by  Dr.  W.  Bauer  in  the  author's  possession.  Style 
of  the  Olmec  coastal  population.  Considered  by  Batres  (in  his  Civilizaciön  prehist.  de  las  riberas 
del  Papaloapam,  Mex.   1908  p.  47)  as  a  product  of  "Mayoid"  culture. 

27.  Clay  figure  of  a  warrior  with  pot-lid  shaped  hat,  his  raised  arms  holding  a  club  and  ready  to  strike. 
The  body  is  in  a  pot  somewhat  like  a  suit  of  armour.  The  calves  are  covered  with  mosaic  bands. 
Heredia  Coll.  S.  Andres  de  Tuxtla.  From  a  photograph  by  Dr.  W.  Bauer.  Style  of  the  Olmec 
coastal  inhabitants  (Olmeca-Uixtotin).  The  figure  is  strikingly  similar  to  a  clay-figure  from  Colima. 
Vogel's  Coll.    (Berlin  Ethn.  Mus.  No.  IV.    Ca.  34  403). 

28.  Stone  relief  from  Huilocintla,  Hacienda  San  Isidro,  Canton  Tuxpan.  Tatooed  figure  of  Ce  ocelotl 
("i  Jaguar")  =  Quetzalcouatl's  or  his  incarnation  inflicting  self-chastisement  —  by  piercing  the 
tongue  with  a  thorn-like  instrument  of  torture.  About  ^/j,  of  natural  size.  Totonac  style 
influenced  by  young  Toltec  art.    (Plaster  cast  in  Berlin  Ethn.  Mus.  No.  IV.    Ca.  25  072). 

29.  Stone  relief  from  Huilocintla  Colegio  preparatorio  de  Jalapa.  About  '/u  of  natural  size;  tatooed 
figure  of  Quetzalcouatl  similar  to  fig.  28.  Both  from  photographs  by  Frau  C.  Seler.  Cf.  Ges.  Abh. 
E.  Ill,  p.   514 — 521   (plaster  cast  in  Berlin  Ethn.  Mus.  No.  IV,  Ca.  25071). 

30.  Stone  relief  about  i  m.  broad  and  1.80  m.  high.  Richly  ornamented  human  figure,  the  face  looking 
out  of  the  opened  jaws  of  a  monster,  the  ear-ornaments  with  flower  rosette;  a  horizontal  line  is 
drawn  from  nose  to  mouth  over  the  lower  part  of  the  face.    The  coat  is  ornamented  with  a  mean- 


26  .   The  History  of  Ancient  Mexican  Art. 

drian  edging  with  flower  rosette  in  the  middle-field,  the  lower  border  with  a  dentated  edging 
and  an  animal's  head  in  front;  the  bandages  around  the  calves  and  a  foot-ribbon  are  recognizable 
on  the  partly  broken  feet.  At  the  back  of  the  head  of  the  monster-mask  there  is  the  head  of  a 
snake  with  open  jaws.  A  snake—like  body,  belonging  perhaps  to  this  head,  hangs  down  the  back 
of  the  figure,  its  outer  edge  limited  by  the  plaited  hair  tresses  of  the  figure.  The  left  arm  is 
raised,  the  r.  bent,  showing  only  a  partly  extended  hand.  In  front  of  the  figure,  on  the  edge,  there 
is  a  vertical  stripe  of  hieroglyphics.  Horizontally  above  the  figure  a  creature  like  a  fire-snake,  the 
head  ornamented  with  lightning-arrows  (miötli).  Above  the  body  another  opened  jaw  of  a  reptile, 
the  tail-end  apparently  moved  to  the  side  on  the  right.  Mus.  Nac.  de  Mex.  (No.  24).  Information 
as  to  origin  of  "Chapultepec"  in  Del  Paso  y  Troncoso  (Catalogo  Exposiciön  Hist.  Am.  Madrid, 
Vol.  II,  p.  389 — 90)  is  doubtful.  The  piece  serves  as  a  connecting  style  between  the  Huilocintla 
reliefs  (vide  plate  28  and  29)  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Tzapotec  grave  stone  with  its  yet  undeci- 
phered  hieroglyphics  on  the  other.  (Cf.  e.  g.  grave  stones  from  Tlacolula  etc.,  Oaxaca  in  Seler 
G.  A.  II,  p.  359  et  seq. 

31.  Clay  head  with  richly  ornamented  head-dress:  26  cm.  high.  Ethn.  Mus.  Berlin,  No.  IV,  Ca.  11  152; 
Seler  Coll.  Tlacolula,  Tzapotec  style. 

32.  Smoothed  hematite'figure  23  cm.  high.  Ethn.  Mus.  Berlin,  No.  IV,  Ca.  30  347.  Seler  Coll.  Teotitlan 
del  Camino,  borders  of  the  Tzapotec  country. 

33.  Head  of  smooth  dark  stone  with  frontlet;  about  i  span  high.  In  the  town  of  Chiapa,  Chiapas,  pri- 
vate property.    Photograph  by  Frau  C.  Seler  (1897). 

34.  Above:  Sacred  funeral-urn  in  the  shape  of  a  sitting  human  figure  with  rich  head-dress.  Nat.  Hist. 
Mus.  Vienna,  Guillaume  Coll.  Oaxaca.  Photo,  by  Frau  C.  Seler.  Tzapotec  style.  —  Below:  Sacred 
funeral-urn  in  the  shape  of  a  sitting  human  figure  with  grotesque  bearded  face;  two  dentated 
clay  censers  on  pipe-shaped  base,  in  front  jaguar  head  with  ribbons.  Kennedy  Coll.  Oaxaca.  Photo, 
by  Frau  C.  Seler  (1910).  Tzapotec  style.  (Cf.  similar  censers  in  Ethn.  Mus.  Berlin  from  Sta. 
Maria  Sola.) 

35.  Front  and  side  view  of  a;  human  fig.  with  dance-rattles  attached  to  belt;  a  drinking  vessel  in  the 
shape  of  a  jaguar's  foot  held  in  the  outstretched  hands.  The  head  with  hair  dressed  in  catterpillar- 
shaped  coils.  Nat.  Hist.  Mus.  Vienna,  Guillaume  Coll.  Oaxaca.  Photo,  by  Frau  C.  Seler.  Tzapotec 
style  (cf.  a  similar  piece  in  Ethn.  Mus.  Berlin.  No.  IV,  Ca.  28  353  from  Nazareno,  Dist.  del  Centro 
[Oaxaca],  grave  excavation  1856). 

36.  Front  and  side  view  of  a  brownish  clay  figure  62  cm.  high,  with  rattle  belt;  mouth  opened  (to  sing.'') 
and  chieftain's  hair-coif  consisting  of  a  bundle  of  hair  wrapped  in  a  leather  strap.  Ethn.  Mus.  Berlin. 
No.  IV,  Ca.  31  601.  Seler  Coll.  Santiago  Tuxtla  (acquired  together  with  piece  mentioned  as  No.  25). 
Olmeca-Uixtotin  style,  especially  of  the  Cuetlaxtlan  (Cotastla)  the  "leather-strap  land". 

37.  Sitting  jaguar  with  three  bells;  clay,  64.5  cm.  high;  painted  brown-yellow  and  red  (on  tongue,  nose 
ears,  bushy  eyebrows  and  breast  ribbon).  Ethn.  Mus.  Berlin.  No.  IV,  Ca.  35  247.  Seler  Coll. 
Tzapotec  style. 

38.  Above:  Colossal  stone  head,  very  old-faced  with  wrinkles,  beard  and  frontlet;  reminiscent  of  similar 
bearded  faces  of  glazed  clay  vessels  from  Vera  Cruz.  (Strebel  Coll.  Ethn.  Mus.  Berlin,  cf.  Seler 
G.  A.  Ill,  p.  624,  fig.  90,  and  V.  S.  559,  fig.  228)  and  the  republic  of  Salvador.  Sta.  Lucia  Co- 
zumalhuapa,  Finca  Bilbao  (later  =  Peor  es  nada)  property  of  Koch  Hagemann  and  Co.  Photo,  by 
F.  Berendt  (grandson  of  H.  Strebel)  belonging  to  Prof.  E.  Seler.  Pipil  style  of  the  Guatemala 
coast.  —  Below:  "Cabeza  colosal".    Colossal  stone  head.    Tuxtla  canton.    Photo,  by  Fr.  C.  Seler. 

39.  Large  stone  relief.  A  chieftain  sitting  on  a  chair  (r.  of  spectator)  dressed  in  jaguar  skin.  Snakes 
coiled  round  hair,  and  a  snake  on  right  leg.  The  hands  hold  fruit-shaped  hearts.  Underneath  the 
chair  a  bowl  filled  with  heads,  a  sacrificial  knife,  and  the  figure  of  child.    In  the  middle  of  the  relief 


The  History  of  Ancient  Mexican  Ai't.  27 

a  tall  figure  with  head  turned  backwards,  hair-plait,  down-feather  bush  in  nape  of  neck,  the  slightly 
raised  hands  hold  (1.)  an  ornamented  sacrificial  blade,  and  (r.)  a  heart-shaped  fruit.  The  loin-cloths 
are  richly  ornamented,  the  left  knee  tied  with  a  snake.  The  features  of  this  figure  appear  to  be 
young.  A  smaller  figure  approaching  from  left  has  a  long  pointed  peg  in  its  knee,  the  extended 
1.  hand  holds  a  bone-dagger,  the  raised  right  one  a  female  shirt-clad  child.  A  small  male  person 
crouches  between  the  stepping  and  the  tall  standing  figjures.  There  are  tendril-scrolls  in  front  of 
the  mouths  of  the  sitting  and  standing  figures  to  denote  speech.  Along  the  whole  relief  garlands 
with  leaves,  buds,  blossoms,  and  birds  are  distributed.  The  original  is  a  lava  block  at  the  foot  of 
a  low  earth  pyramid  of  the  Hacienda  Peor  es  nada  (formerly  Bilbao)  near  Sta.  Lucia  Cozumalhuapa, 
Dep.  Escuintla,  Rep.  Guatemala.  Photo,  by  Frau  C.  Seler  (Cast  in  Ethn.  Mus.  Berlin,  Seler  Coll. 
presented  by  H.  Ex.  the  Duke  of  Loubat,  and  stands  in  the  central  hall,  No.  29).  Pipil  style.  Cf. 
S.  Habel,  The  Sculpture  of  Sta.  L.  C.  Washington  1872;  Bastian  "Steinskulpturen  aus  Guatemala", 
and  J.  F.  Bransford,  Ann.  Rep.  Board  of  Regents,  Smiths.  Inst,  for  1884,  Wash.  1885,  p.  719 — 730, 
Seler  "Centenario",  Madrid,  No.  26  (1892),  p.  241 — 252,  Strebel  "Jahrbuch"  Hamburg  "Wiss. 
Anst."  XI  (1874),  C.  Seler,  "Auf  Alten  Wegen  in  Mexico  und  Guatemala",  Berlin  1910;  Guides  to 
the  Royal  Museums  Berlin,  Ethn.  Mus.   Berlin.     16  th  ed.  (1914),  p.  20 — 36. 

40.  Stone  relief  from  Menche  (Stone  Lintel  House,  M.).  A  human  figure  kneeling  on  r.  leg,  grasping 
with  r.  hand  the  pendant  tassel  of  a  large  flint  bladed  lance  belonging  to  the  chief  person  standing 
before  the  recumbant  one.  The  former  holds  the  lance  in  his  uplifted  1.  hand,  whilst  with  his  r. 
he  grasps  the  hair  of  the  kneeling  figure  who  holds  with  his  1.  hand  the  end  of  a  ribbon  attached 
to  the  lance.  The  central  figure  is  ornamented  with  a  feather  head-dress,  and  has  a  skull  suspended 
over  his  back.  The  flattened,  i.  e.  artificially  deformed  skulls  of  the  figures  are  noteworthy.  Besides 
large  hieroglyphics  in  relief  there  are  still  smaller  engraved  ones  behind  the  left  leg  of  the  chief  person. 
It  is  possible  that  these  hieroglyphics  refer  to  the  two  figures  represented.  According  to  Maudslay, 
Biologia  Centraliamericana,  Archaeol.  Vol.  II.    PI.  97.     (Photo,  in  Ethn.  Mus.  Berlin.)    Maya  style. 

41.  Facade  of  the  temple  palace  of  Sayil  with  stone  columns  probably  developed  from  an  older  wood 
architecture  and  a  grotesque  mask  of  joined  stones.  Photo,  by  Teobert  Maler  (in  Ethn.  Mus.  Berlin). 
Maya  style.    (N.  W.  Yucatan,  between  Hecelchakan  and  Ticul). 

42.  Clay  figure,  18  cm.  high.  Mailed  figure  in  cotton  armour  (Aztec  ichcauipilli)  with  cap,  collar-piece 
and  shield,  Ethn.  Mus.  Berlin,  No.  IV,  Ca.  32  344,  Dr.  F.  Cazares  Coll.  Merida,  Hacienda  Cuzumal 
(between  Merida  and  Muna)  Dist.  of  Maxcanu,  W.  Coast  of  Yucatan.    Maya  style. 

43.  Clay  figure  29  cm.  high.  Jester  (?)  with  collar-piece,  upper  garments  with  sleeves  and  leather  strips. 
Girdle,  apron;  trousers  with  leather  strips,  and  sandals.  Ethn.  Mus.  Berlin.  No.  IV,  Ca.  4938. 
Jimeno's  Coll.  Yucatan,  Maya  atyle. 

44.  Feather  snake  column  in  front  of  the  Cella  on  the  hill  of  the  "Tiger  and  Jaguar  Temple"  in  Chi- 
ch'en  itza  (N.  E.  Yucatan).  Photo,  by  Fr.  C.  Seler  (1902).  Toltecan  style  of  the  celebrated  Tollan 
snake  column,  fragments  of  which  have  actually  been  found  in  Tula,  and  are  kept  in  the  Mus.  Nac. 
of  Mex.  In  ref.  to  various  architectural  periods  cf.  T.  Maler  "Globus",  Vol.  82,  p.  225,  and 
W.  Holmes,  Arch.  Researches  Field  Columbia  Mus.  Anthr.  I,  p.  106 — 109. 

45.  Stone  figure  of  the  so-called  "Chac-Mol"  type  (Le  Plongeon's),  also  called  "Dios  recostado",  with 
bowl-like  hollow  in  body,  butterfly-shaped  breast  ornament,  head  turned  to  right.  About  1.48  m 
long,  I  m.  high,  and  78  cm.  broad.  The  original  was  excavated  in  1884  by  Le  Plongeon  in  Chich'en- 
itza,  and  is  now  kept  in  the  Mus.  Nac.  of  Mex.  (Cast  in  Ethn.  Mus.  Berlin,  No.  IV,  Ca.  18  553). 
Toltec  style.  Such  antique  figures  are  mostly  found  in  or  near  the  entrance  of  temple  porticos 
being  used  perhaps  as  vessels  to  hold  offerings  of  honey  or  pulque,  also  in  the  older  stratum 
before  the  actual  Sacrarium  of  the  temple  of  Cempoallan  (Totonac  dist.).  Cf.  Seler,  G.  A.  II, 
p.  817 — 820,  V.    p.  153  et  seq.    I  discovered  a  Chac-Mol  in  S.  Salvador  (1909).    The  discovery  o^ 


28  The  History  of  Ancient  Mexican  Art. 

the  Chiche'  nitzä  Chac-Mol  in  situ  in  Aug.    Le  Plongeon,  Queen  Moo  II.  edit.  N.  Y.  1900,  plate  62, 
cf.  Lond.   Magazine  Vol.  241,  No.   140,  p.   123 — 132. 

46.  Large  clay  vessel  with  plastic  face.  Nat.  Hist.  Mus.  Vienna,  Adam  Coll.  Photo,  by  Fr.  C.  Seler. 
S.  Salvador.  Similar,  but  partially  perforated  vessels  come  from  Quen  Santo  (Chacula),  the  western 
Maya  dist.  of  the  frontier  of  Chiapas  and  Guatemala.    Maya  style. 

47.  Page  6  of  the  Dresden  Maya  MS.  (vide  E.  Förstemann).  Gods  with  accompanying  hieroglyphics, 
numbers  and  day  symbols.    Maya  style. 

48.  Stone  plate  with  a  jaguar  in  relief  eating  a  heart.  Chich'enitza,  Mausoleum  I,  Photo,  by  T.  Maler 
in  Ethn.  Mus.  Berlin  (1886,  94).    Cf.  Le  Plongeon,  Queen  M60  II.    edit.  N.  Y.  1900,  plate  59. 


Earliest 
Times 


Pre- 
Histon 


Aboriginal 
Mayas 


Protol 
Histor 

(mythicat«nns  of  ancient! 
tingedffoltec  culture 

i-eached  the  ab-    ' 
original   Mayas   I 

early  as  perhaps 
300  A.  D.         ' 

5out  526  A.  D  J 
wst  settlement 
Dm  the  south*« 

Je.'*"-J'hence  ancient 

rtlStqich'enitza  was 

(partlpiscovered"  in 

mythicarca  585  A.  D. 

'°^*TBirdgod  from     , 
ixtla  158  years 


I 


iden  jade  plate 

om  S.  Belize    1 

latest  loth  cent 

A.  D.  ' 


'3 


Actfyapan  des- 

Hisr/'J5^i45oj 


pllan 


before  loooB.C. 


A.D.— 600  B.  C- 


726— 1235  (?) 
726 — 1064  A.D. 
I  nd  Toltec 

downfall 


.  Proto-Toltec 


b)  Ancient-Toltec 


A.  Prc-Tcotihuai 


Pueblos.  Casas  grande- 


uProto-Teotihua 


D.  Young  -Tcotihuacan 


.  ;g  b)   Early  Mexican 


,  Tonayan- 
3.  Tlät" 


Colhuacan-Mexico    (S»h 


Tenochtitlan -Mexico 


VI.  Mixed  style 
VII,  epigonal 


Tribes    and    their    Hist 


Teules  Chichimeca 


Proto-Toltecs 


[Pre-Tenochca.  ii6S 
I  Ancient-Aztecs 


Chichimec 

Acolhuaq 

Am.que,.,rej 

Otomi 

■hi"  *p*'od 

.Vt'lCbiVc'h'.co 

TBg-,«-,  A.  D 

CommcDcemea 

roltecic.icd: 

eTiVsi-iYi^ 

Tolteca- 

Bittbye»rol 

chichimeca 

"ing^^Chfc'bi 

■^'oiJ^^'Mlfs 

'tTonVännlSj" 

Ä^lL'«, 

loll  —  836, 

n 


¥ 


10 


« a^^.jau.f.SJ-ii'!^.. 


11 


\<4 


■^ 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


22 


23 


24 


25 


26 


27 


/ 


28 


'r'r  k 


f 


n 


J 


I    T 


J, 


29 


^r^taSfh- .  ^y*-.  v^-^^ 


\ 


30 


31 


32 


33 


34 


;^9 


35 


36 


37 


38 


39 


40 


41 


42 


r   .vX 


fj0i^' 


43 


44 


45 


*t? 


*?? 


-X 


f^ 


I 


i 


46 


:-A.i'-  ,:^ii'W^~21W:'^--'-  ■'•'C"^y^y^??vT-''' 


47 


r^p>^o^<^^n^ 


J'  f 


48 


b 


«UNIVERSITY  OF  C -t  IFORNlM 


THE  LIBRAirr 
ÖHIVEKSITY  0        .jFOftNtÜ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
.  «.  iioiThis  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 

^.H  3^973 

«90  tM» 

FEB' '  fises 

RICO  m^^Q^ 

IHM  ^^9  i^g0 

APR  18  1979 

«RCTItB-UW 

»AR  26  1981 

,^^*'^ 

x^^'^^ 

(R\n     IAN  12 1987 

Form  L9-Series  WJ  •     '-' 

